adtCompatibiliyGraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what the graph contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 (implied by 'graph' retrieval) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the compatibility graph entails, its format, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4.

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 states the tool 'retrieves the ADT compatibility graph', which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('ADT compatibility graph'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'adtDiscovery', 'adtCoreDiscovery'), leaving the specific purpose vague in context.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 0 parameters, it might be implied for general retrieval, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, making usage unclear among similar tools.

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