tracecat_get_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes the output but omits behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, error handling, or rate limits. For a retrieval tool, it should at least note it's read-only.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded and free of redundancy. Every word serves a purpose: first sentence states function, second provides use case.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return components (nodes, edges, positions, version). It is sufficiently complete, though could mention it's read-only.

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 100% with a single parameter 'workflow_id' having a minimal description 'Workflow ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the workflow graph with components like nodes, edges, positions, and version. It differentiates from sibling 'get' tools (e.g., tracecat_get_workflow) by focusing on visual layout and connections.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to 'inspect the visual layout and connections between actions', giving a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, limiting full contextual guidance.

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