get_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets information, implying a read operation, but fails to disclose potential errors, data format, or any side effects. The description is insufficient to understand the tool's actual behavior.

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 short, but not because it is appropriately concise—it is under-specified. The single sentence 'Get graph information' conveys minimal information and lacks front-loaded details that would help an agent decide whether to invoke the tool. It does not earn its place as a useful description.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate for a tool with a required 'graph' parameter. It does not explain what information is retrieved, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools, making it impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 input schema defines a single 'graph' parameter of type string, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what the 'graph' parameter refers to (e.g., graph name, ID) or how it should be formatted. The phrase 'graph information' does not clarify the parameter's purpose or expected values.

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 states 'Get graph information' with a clear verb, but the resource is vague ('graph information') and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like graph_statistics or get_node_attributes. It implies a read operation on a graph but lacks specificity about what kind of information is returned.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for choosing 'get_info' over sibling tools such as graph_statistics or get_node_attributes, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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