sparql_list_graphs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. Description adds that it queries the endpoint and returns URIs. No contradictions, but adds little beyond annotations.

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?

Concise, front-loaded purpose, includes example. No wasted sentences or redundant information.

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 simple tool, existing annotations, and output schema implied, the description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and provides an example. Complete for its complexity.

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?

Context indicates 0% schema description coverage, so description must compensate. It lists parameters (endpoint, timeout, headers) at a high level but omits constraints like timeout range and that endpoint is required. Inadequate for a tool with one parameter that has nested fields.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'List available named graphs'. Distinguishes from sibling SPARQL query tools like sparql_query and sparql_construct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, such as when to list graphs vs query or get prefixes. The purpose is distinct, but lacking contextual recommendations. Adequate but minimal.

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