get_graph_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns an aggregated overview rather than detailed data, and implies a read-only, lightweight operation by saying it provides a summary before scanning large graphs. This is useful context beyond the tool name alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with a one-line summary of the output, followed by the key usage trigger. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words.

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 has no parameters, an existing output schema, and a simple read-only summary purpose, the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains what the tool returns and when to call it.

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 and the schema is fully documented by its emptiness, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as a graph overview that reports scale, type distribution, layer, and top hubs. It distinguishes itself from detailed node/edge/list tools by focusing on a high-level summary, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without inspecting them.

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 gives explicit usage context: call it first during handover and before scanning thousands of nodes. It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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