get_action_graph_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Read', signaling a non-mutating operation, and it discloses the specific status facets covered. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but these are less material for a read operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information, and the core status fields are listed immediately after the resource.

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 output schema handles return values, so the description does not need to restate them. However, the optional parameters are formally unexplained, and the description does not clarify how this tool relates to neighboring action-graph tools, leaving the definition minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The required graph_path is inferable from 'one Action Graph', but command_id and idempotency_key are completely unexplained, leaving optional invocation behavior ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('one Action Graph'), and lists the exact status dimensions returned (enabled, evaluation, error). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_action_graph and list_action_graphs.

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 reading a single graph's status, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusion criteria, or when to prefer this over get_action_graph or list_action_graphs. Usage context is present only by inference from the wording.

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