get_graph_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope of returned data (all nodes/edges/findings, including low-severity), which is useful. However, it does not mention performance implications or the fact that data may be stale (though freshness is covered in the parameter schema). This is reasonable for a read-only query tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main function, and efficiently adds usage guidance and alternatives without redundancy.

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?

The description adequately explains the return content (nodes, edges, findings) and gives usage guidance. No output schema exists, so the description's list of return types partially compensates. However, it could mention the output structure or potential large size, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and call.

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 description does not discuss the maxAgeSeconds parameter, but the schema provides a 100% descriptive coverage with a detailed explanation of freshness and advisory behavior. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 that the tool returns every node, edge, and finding, using specific verbs and resource types. It distinguishes itself from get_infra_overview by noting the alternative for a quick overview.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: 'when you need to trace relationships across multiple services or require the complete finding set — not just high-severity ones.' Also names the alternative tool for quick overview, effectively giving a when-not-to-use.

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