api_graphql_introspect

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

With no annotations and no behavioral detail in the description, the agent has no information about what the tool actually does beyond the vague concept of introspection. It does not disclose output format, request method, error behavior, or authentication needs.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to convey essential information about the tool's functionality or usage.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description must carry the full explanatory burden. It does not, leaving the agent with almost no contextual information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter 'url' is self-explanatory from its name, but the description adds no further meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining what URL to provide (e.g., GraphQL endpoint) and any constraints, but it does not.

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 "GraphQL introspection" is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It lacks a clear verb and does not specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve schema, list types) or how it differs from siblings like api_graphql_fuzz.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which alternatives might be more appropriate. The description provides zero context for tool selection among the many API-related siblings.

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