graph_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns summary statistics but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects. For a stats tool, this is adequate but minimal; no contradictions or missing critical info.

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, efficiently front-loading the purpose and listing returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It mentions the return values, though it does not explicitly state that a graph must be loaded (implied by 'loaded tool graph'). Minor gap, but overall sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate since none are needed.

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 shows summary statistics about the loaded tool graph, specifying the returned data (tool count, node count, edge count, category breakdown). It distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_tool or search_tools by focusing on graph overview rather than execution or search.

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 the tool is for obtaining a summary of the tool graph, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like list_categories or search_tools. However, the context is clear enough for a simple info tool, and no exclusion criteria are needed.

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