role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, pagination semantics, or any side effects. It simply lists variable names and an example without explaining the query's behavior or output.

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 not well-structured: it starts with a cryptic fragment, then a flat list of variables, then a truncated example. It lacks a clear, front-loaded statement of purpose. While it is not overly long, it is inefficient because most of the text is a mechanical replay of schema variable names with minimal explanatory value.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, nested GraphQL types, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, filtering semantics, pagination, or the relationship to Access Groups. The example is complex but unexplained, and there is no mention of authorization or response format. The description is far from adequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema provides only GraphQL type names (e.g., 'String', 'Int'), which are unhelpful. The description adds an example showing nested filter structures, but it does not explain what each field (e.g., 'after', 'filter', 'order') actually does. The variable names are repeated, and the example is truncated, providing only marginal value beyond the 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 states 'Access Groups · query role', which identifies a resource and a generic action, but is ambiguous. It does not clearly explain what the query returns or how it differs from sibling tools like 'roles', 'access_group', or 'access_groups'. The phrase 'query role' is a fragment rather than a full statement of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose 'role' over 'roles' or 'access_group', or any constraints. The description only lists variables and an example, leaving the user to infer the tool's intended use case.

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