Strata action graph

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

Annotations already state the tool is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful context by indicating 'live' operations and 'external signing boundaries,' but it does not explain the returned representation, completeness, or any potential dynamic behavior beyond 'live'.

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 a clear verb and a compact enumeration of outputs. Every word contributes; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool reveals, and it does name four relevant output dimensions. It is enough for a 0-parameter discovery call, though a bit more detail on the graph representation would make it fully self-contained.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot realistically add parameter-level semantics. Baseline 4 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 identifies a 'Discover' action and names the key outputs: live operations, required capabilities, transition conditions, and external signing boundaries. It differentiates the tool from markets/quote/status siblings, though it overlaps somewhat with strata_capabilities and could more explicitly say 'returns the action graph.'

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 this tool is useful for understanding the Strata action model before executing/preparing actions, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives or when to prefer strata_capabilities instead.

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