run_cypher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the read-only nature and that writes/procedure calls are rejected, which is a key behavioral trait. It doesn't elaborate on error handling or return format, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need. The 'Prefer the dedicated tools' also conveys that this is a last resort.

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 terse sentences with all necessary information front-loaded. No word is wasted, and it conveys purpose, constraints, and usage guidance efficiently.

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 the low complexity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the clear read-only constraint, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The guidance to prefer dedicated tools also helps contextual decision-making.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not detail the 'query' parameter beyond implying it is a Cypher query. This is some additional context, but the parameter name 'query' and type 'string' are self-explanatory. The description could enhance semantics by mentioning query examples or limits, but it is adequate for a single straightforward parameter.

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 action: 'Run a READ-ONLY Cypher query.' It specifies the resource (Cypher query) and differentiates from sibling tools by noting it is a generic fallback while dedicated tools exist. The constraints on writes and procedure calls further clarify its scope.

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 explicitly says to prefer dedicated tools, providing a clear alternative. It also specifies that writes and procedure CALLs are rejected, which implicitly guides when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't enumerate the dedicated tools or provide specific scenarios for when this fallback is appropriate, leaving a minor gap.

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