greymatter_fields

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

The example variables reveal cursor-based pagination (after, first) and filtering/sorting capability, which adds some behavioral context beyond the empty annotations. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any rate limits or other constraints, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The example is useful, though the leading 'Fields ·' is cryptic and not a full sentence.

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 tool has five parameters but the description omits 'customer_slug' entirely. There is no output schema, and the description does not describe return values, error behavior, or how this query fits with siblings. The example hints at pagination but is insufficient for confident use.

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 descriptions are minimal ('GraphQL: String'), but the example provides concrete values and nested JSON structure for 'filter' and 'order', significantly aiding parameter understanding. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the operation as a query for grey matter fields ('Fields · query greymatterFields'), which is more specific than a tautology, but it lacks a clear verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not explain what grey matter fields are or what the query returns. It is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus the singular 'greymatter_field' or other query tools. The description gives variables and an example but no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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