get_graph_schema

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Return" implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, default scope when no project is supplied, return format, or whether the snapshot must already exist.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, the brevity leaves no structure for explaining scope, defaults, or return behavior.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the one-sentence description is not complete enough. It identifies the resource but leaves return shape, default behavior, and parameter meaning unspecified.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single optional project parameter, and the description never mentions it. The phrase "this space snapshot" hints at scoping, but it does not explain what project selects or what happens when it is omitted.

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, "Return," and a specific resource, "native CBM graph schema details," scoped to a space snapshot. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not explain what CBM means or distinguish itself from siblings such as get_architecture.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent how this schema-inspection tool relates to get_architecture, query_graph, or search_graph.

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