get_subgraph_detail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return format (listing specific data points like domain, protocol type, entities, reliability score, etc.), which is crucial for understanding output. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameter, and the second details the return values. Every element contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and output, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a complete overview of purpose and detailed return values, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by addressing potential errors or usage constraints, slightly limiting completeness for safe operation by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'subgraph_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating that it accepts 'subgraph ID or IPFS hash', which is already covered in the schema's description. No additional syntax, format, or contextual details beyond the schema are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get full classification detail'), target resource ('specific subgraph'), and identification method ('by its subgraph ID or IPFS hash'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_registry_stats (aggregate statistics), recommend_subgraph (recommendations), and search_subgraphs (searching multiple subgraphs) by focusing on detailed retrieval for a single identified subgraph.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when detailed classification information for a specific subgraph is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_subgraphs (which might return less detail) or recommend_subgraph (which suggests subgraphs). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.