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 checks validity but doesn't describe what 'valid' means (e.g., syntax, schema compliance), potential error outputs, or performance aspects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Check if a GraphQL query is valid') and adds context ('before executing it') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place by clarifying the tool's role in a workflow.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on validation criteria, error handling, or integration with siblings like 'run-query,' which would enhance completeness for a validation tool in this context.

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 'query' parameter clearly documented as 'The GraphQL query to validate.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Check') and resource ('GraphQL query'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'run-query' by focusing on validation rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'build-query' or 'find-fields'), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 usage by mentioning 'before executing it,' suggesting this tool should be used prior to 'run-query' for validation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for similar tasks, such as using 'build-query' for constructing queries instead of validating them.

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