BuildBetter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool builds a query string but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it validates inputs, what happens with invalid parameters, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence: 'Build a simple GraphQL query string for a specific type'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, uses no unnecessary words, and every part earns its place by specifying key elements like 'GraphQL' and 'specific type'.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., a string, an object), error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. For a query-building tool with no output schema, more detail on behavioral outcomes is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify semantics like how 'filter' structures depend on schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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's purpose: 'Build a simple GraphQL query string for a specific type'. It specifies the verb ('Build'), resource ('GraphQL query string'), and scope ('for a specific type'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'run-query' or 'query-template', which appear related to query execution or templating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'run-query' (which likely executes queries) or 'query-template' (which might handle templates), leaving the agent to guess based on names alone. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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