BuildBetter

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 states the tool returns field names but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list, object), potential errors (e.g., if type doesn't exist), or any constraints like rate limits or permissions needed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'typeName' documented as 'GraphQL type name'. The description adds minimal value by specifying it's for 'GraphQL type (object or input object)', which slightly clarifies the parameter's context but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('field names for a specified GraphQL type'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-types' or 'schema-overview', which might also relate to GraphQL schema information.

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 like 'list-types' or 'schema-overview'. It mentions the tool works for 'GraphQL type (object or input object)', which gives some context, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions compared to siblings.

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