Strata platform graph

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the 'public' scope and the categories returned, but it does not clarify response size, pagination, or what 'live availability gate' means. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though the list of returned categories is dense and somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 parameterless read-only discovery tool with strong annotations, the description covers the high-level contents of the graph and is enough to understand the tool's purpose. However, without an output schema, it leaves the exact return format and the meaning of 'live availability gate' implicit.

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 schema is fully covered by default. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-graph discovery operation, and no parameter-level explanation is needed.

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 names the resource ('platform graph') and identifies the categories exposed: modules, entity relationships, operation bindings, workflows, and availability gates. It is specific enough to convey what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as strata_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The broad 'Discover every...' phrasing implies a general discovery role, but the description does not state usage context.

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