analysis_iograph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint: the limit of 10 graph definitions, which is not present in the schema. It also notes optional filters, adding context beyond annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action, then elaborates with constraints. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 that the tool has 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions and the description covers only graphs and filters, the input context is poorly specified. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but an agent would struggle to construct valid graph definitions or know valid interval units. The description is incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'graph definitions' and 'optional filters', providing some meaning for the 'graphs' and possibly 'display_filter' parameters. However, it fails to explain interval, interval_units, and analysis_session_id, which are critical for invocation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('I/O graph time-series data'). It also mentions key constraints ('up to 10 graph definitions') and optional filters, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling analysis tools, though the resource focus is distinct.

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 for generating I/O graphs but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so the agent must infer from context that this is the tool for graph generation.

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