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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the delta-merge return contract, warns that the role map is a 'heuristic', and scopes `endpoint` to EntityType neighborhoods only. It does not state that expansion is a read-only/no-side-effect operation or discuss failure modes, which leaves a gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then a compact per-kind enumeration. It is dense but every clause conveys distinct behavior; only slight tightening (e.g., the parenthetical heuristic caveat) would be possible.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics — it does so via the {nodes, edges, message} contract and per-kind results. What the 'message' field contains and how the delta reconciles with existing canvas state remain unspecified, a minor residual gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 80% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the kind×view interaction — e.g. view='permission' yields 'permissions that touch the entity' and view='role' adds granting roles. This is genuine semantic value the enum descriptions alone don't convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('expand one node of the schema graph'), names the return payload ({nodes, edges, message} delta), and explicitly positions itself as the interactive companion to visualize_schema_graph. The per-kind breakdown lets an agent distinguish exact behavior without opening the schema.

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 'interactive companion to visualize_schema_graph' framing tells the agent this is the incremental-expansion path versus full-graph visualization, and each kind/view combination is mapped to a described outcome. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer get_permission_context for permission questions).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned scope (related changes, permission context) and notes the heuristic caveat in get_permission_context, but it does not describe operational behavior such as read-only nature, error cases, or return format details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing. The parenthetical caveat is dense but earns its place by warning about the heuristic permission context.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return components and a caveat, but it leaves gaps about how to obtain change_id and how this tool relates to sibling history/snapshot tools. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single change_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, source, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a clear verb-resource pair: full detail for a single change record. It also enumerates what the detail includes (related changes and permission context), though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling detail/history tools such as get_object_history or get_snapshot_summary.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings, nor any when-not conditions. The only sibling reference is a pointer to get_permission_context for a caveat, which is not usage guidance for selecting this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden: it discloses newest-first ordering and compact/sized output, which is genuine behavioral context. However it does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated/truncated by a hidden cap, or any permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a history tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and ordering front-loaded, and the sibling relationship last. Minimal waste, though 'App-facing companion' is slightly redundant with 'visualizer detail panel'.

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?

For a 4-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and one behavioral trait (ordering) but omits param meaning, pagination/limits, and read-only nature. Adequate to recognize the tool, insufficient to invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% and the description mentions zero parameters. It never explains node_id, limit default/cap, or the 'since' date-vs-day-count format, so it adds nothing beyond the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented half.

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?

States a specific resource and shape: 'newest-first change timeline for one schema object'. It clarifies the purpose via 'sized for the visualizer detail panel' and distinguishes itself from get_object_history as a 'companion'. Slightly less crisp than a 5 because 'compact' and 'App-facing' are jargon that don't sharpen the purpose.

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?

Implies usage via 'visualizer detail panel' and names get_object_history as the sibling it companions, but never states when to pick this one over get_object_history (e.g. compact/preview vs full history). No exclusions or prerequisites given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does add the 'oldest to newest' ordering, but says nothing about whether results are truncated, whether 'since' limits the window or the word 'Full' conflicts with it, or what the response looks like. A mutation-history read tool needs more than one ordering clause.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a clarifying gloss, with no filler. Every phrase (full, specific object type, oldest to newest) contributes.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description had to explain scope, result size, and the effect of 'since'/'endpoint'. It leaves the return shape and the interaction between 'Full' and 'since' unresolved, which is a real gap for a 3-parameter history tool.

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?

Schema coverage is a middling 67% and the description mentions no parameters. It never explains what 'object_name' identifies at the type-vs-instance level or what 'since' and 'endpoint' do, leaving the description to add zero meaning beyond the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource (full change history for a Graph object type) plus an ordering guarantee and a plain-language gloss. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings (get_recent_changes, get_node_timeline, search_changes), so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied through the quoted question 'what has happened to X over time?', which suggests investigating a single object type's past. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to get_recent_changes / search_changes / get_change_detail.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that it does not rank or compute least privilege, that role<->permission cross-referencing is a heuristic with no official Microsoft crosswalk, and that grantable_by must be verified rather than trusted. It also explains the semantics of is_ownership_scoped as a distinct privilege axis.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Two modes' and enumerated (1)/(2), so an agent can parse the branching quickly. Mode 2 is dense and clause-heavy with parenthetical asides, but every sentence carries substantive constraints rather than boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what each mode returns, including named output fields. Remaining gaps are the interaction between object_name and permission_name when both or neither are passed (all four params are optional), and how limit/endpoint apply across modes.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description still adds real meaning by explaining what each parameter yields (object_name → unlock/grant/change data; permission_name → overlapping-scope alternatives with resource_count and is_ownership_scoped). It does not clarify what happens if both parameters are supplied or omitted, leaving a small gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource per mode: mode 1 answers 'which permissions touch a Graph object, what each unlocks, who can grant them, and its recent changes'; mode 2 returns 'that permission's detail plus other permissions with overlapping resource scope'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like search_changes or get_object_history, which operate on change/history rather than permission scope.

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?

It gives explicit mode-selection criteria keyed on the input parameter and supplies a concrete triggering scenario (comparing a less-privileged alternative to Synchronization.ReadWrite.All). It also states what the tool will NOT do (compute least privilege). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or a when-not-to-use case, so it lands just below the top.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about result ordering, pagination/limit behavior, the size or shape of the response, or read-only safety. 'Structured' hints at machine-readable output but no behavioral traits are actually disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the filterable dimensions listed compactly after a dash; zero filler. It is lean to the point that needed behavioral context is absent, but as prose it is well structured.

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?

Seven optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 43% schema description coverage — this definition needed to explain the default 7-day window, the limit cap of 200, and result ordering. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict what it will get back.

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 description enumerates the filter dimensions (date, endpoint, object type/name, change kind, source), which maps to 6 of the 7 parameters, but adds no semantics beyond the schema — the enums and the 'since' default are already documented. It omits 'limit' entirely and gives no hints on result-window behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('structured, filterable query over the change history') and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the operation is immediately clear. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_changes, get_object_history, or get_node_timeline, which also read change/history data.

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 word 'structured, filterable' implies this is the path for narrowing a history query by known fields, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., versus search_changes for free-text lookups). Usage is inferable only from the purpose statement.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it clarifies that there are two distinct version streams (daily calendar-tagged GitHub snapshot releases vs. npm semver server releases), which prevents misreading the output, and frames the call as a freshness check. It never explicitly states the call is read-only side-effect free, which keeps it off a 5.

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 payload is front-loaded — the resource statement comes first, then the freshness detail, then the versioning scheme, then use cases. It is on the long side and the release-mechanics sentence is dense, but it earns its place by disambiguating the two version formats shown in the output.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully: it lists the returned fields (version, changelog entry, latest snapshots, newest detected changes) and explains why two different version numbers may appear. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this no-parameter tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed and focuses entirely on what the call yields.

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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns: running version, changelog entry, data freshness (latest snapshots and newest detected changes), and release mechanics. None of the sibling tools (search_changes, get_node_timeline, get_object_history, etc.) overlap with server metadata, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Gives three concrete triggering questions in quotes ("what version is this?", "what's new in the latest Graph Atlas release?", "is the local data current?"), which is strong positive guidance. It does not name an alternative or an exclusion, but no sibling plausibly competes for these queries, so the gap is minor.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses what metadata is included (counts, CSDL size, change count), which is useful, but omits operational details like permissions, data freshness, and cost. It is moderately transparent but not thorough.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core content. The quoted use case is efficient and earns its place. Slightly fragmentary structure but 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?

For a two-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description gives the returned metrics but leaves parameters and usage boundaries under-explained. An agent can call it, but with some ambiguity about when to choose it over siblings.

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 description does not mention either parameter. The schema describes the date parameter but not the endpoint enum, giving 50% coverage. The description adds no semantic context for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 a specific resource and set of metrics: entity/property/enum counts, CSDL size, change count. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_recent_changes or search_changes.

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?

It offers two use cases ('How big is Graph API now?' and trend analysis), which implies when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (structured JSON of nodes + edges with change-activity counts, non-visual) and the behavior when focus is omitted (overview of most consequential items), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about pagination/limit effects, whether counts are scoped by `since`, or any auth/latency characteristics for a graph-producing read.

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 core identity and the 'no UI' contrast are front-loaded, and each view sentence earns its place with a concrete example. It is dense but readable; the repeated 'focus_object = ...' phrasing is slightly redundant against the schema and could be tightened.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and returns — it partially does by describing the node/edge payload. Gaps: the `object_name` vs `focus_object` naming conflict, no explanation of `limit` or how `since` interacts with the reported change counts, and no routing to the many sibling tools that overlap (get_permission_context, expand_schema_node).

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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for `view` (all three enum values explained with example focus objects). However, it refers to the focus parameter as `focus_object` while the actual schema property is `object_name` — a naming mismatch that can lead an agent to pass the wrong key. `limit` (min 5, max 100) is undocumented anywhere.

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 names the specific resource (the schema/permission/role graph as nodes + edges with change-activity counts) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling visualizer ('Same data as visualize_schema_graph, without rendering it'). The three view modes are enumerated with concrete examples, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It falls short of 5 only because there is no crisp verb framing of the operation itself.

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?

It routes the agent per view with concrete guidance ('use this to compare what different roles can actually do') and states the omit-focus_object behavior for overview queries. The 'no UI' / 'same data as visualize_schema_graph, without rendering it' line implies when to pick this over the visualizer. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or what other siblings (e.g. get_permission_context, expand_schema_node) cover instead.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: hybrid BM25-style plus semantic search fused by Reciprocal Rank Fusion, and automatic degradation to keyword-only without an OpenAI key. It still omits permissions, rate limits, and result-return details, but it adds substantive behavioral context beyond the 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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before technical search details. It is appropriately sized, though the semicolon-heavy structure is slightly run-on.

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?

The description covers purpose, source coverage, search behavior, and fallback behavior, which is enough to understand invocation context. However, with no output schema and no explanation of returned result shape, it is only partially complete for interpreting or using search results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond noting hybrid degradation, which is also covered in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching Microsoft Graph API change history. It also names the search modes and source coverage, making the purpose clear, although it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_recent_changes or get_object_history.

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?

It implies usage for natural-language or keyword queries across all change-history sources, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_recent_changes, get_object_history, or get_change_detail. The usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a decent job: it discloses the return shape ({id, kind, label, sub}) and the ranking rule (prefix matches first), which are behavioral traits an agent can't infer elsewhere. It omits any note on cost, scope coverage, or what happens on zero matches.

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?

Two tight sentences with the search scope front-loaded, followed by the downstream-use hint and return contract. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by specifying the returned fields and ordering, which is the key missing piece for a search tool. Minor gaps remain around limit behavior and empty-result handling, but nothing essential to invoking it is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: kinds and endpoint are documented in the schema, and the description conceptually maps the kind set ('entity types, permission scopes, Entra roles'). It adds nothing about the query string's minimum length or the limit parameter's cap, so half the parameters remain solely schema-defined — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (name search) and enumerates the three object kinds searched (Graph entity types, permission scopes, Entra roles), plus the resolution behavior (fuzzy names to canonical node ids). This clearly distinguishes it from change-oriented siblings like search_changes and get_object_history.

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?

Explicitly frames the output as input to visualize_schema_graph / expand_schema_node, which tells an agent when this tool is the right first step. However, it doesn't state when-not-to-use or contrast with search_changes directly, so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this opens/renders a visual artifact for the user rather than returning structured data, and the user continues interactively in the UI. It also discloses what the visualization encodes (color by distance from focus, recent-change activity badges, edge semantics). It doesn't say what the tool returns to the agent itself or whether an existing session is reused, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then organized view-by-view so an agent can scan to the relevant case. It is on the long side, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information (view semantics, examples, alternatives). The nested quoting makes it slightly dense but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the rendering behavior, all three view modes, the focus-object mapping, and the no-focus overview. The main remaining gap is what the tool hands back to the agent (URL, handle, or confirmation) versus the visual side, which matters for a UI-launching tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description compensates for the gaps well: it explains the meaning of each view value and what focus_object should be per view (entity type, permission name, role name) with concrete examples, and clarifies the overview case when it is omitted. It adds nothing for 'since' or 'endpoint' (endpoint scoping is only in the schema description), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (open the interactive Graph Atlas visualizer) plus exactly what the artifact is: a force-directed schema graph with search, node expansion, and view pivots. Distinguishes itself from siblings explicitly (expand_schema_node for in-UI expansion, schema_change_report for the same data unrendered), so an agent can separate it from the string of get_* and search_* tools.

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?

Gives per-view selection criteria with worked examples ('entity' for Graph schema nodes like "group"; 'permission' for a scope like "User.Invite.All"; 'role' for a role like "User Administrator") and states the omission case (omit focus_object for an overview). It also names alternatives: continue exploring via expand_schema_node, use schema_change_report for the same data without rendering.

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