get_snapshot_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns metadata counts and size, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, explain response structure, or mention side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise—two clauses and a use-case question—with no filler. Every sentence adds context, and the structure is easily scannable.

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 tool is simple, with no required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core return values (counts, size, change count) and mentions trend analysis, but lacks details on how to perform trend analysis (e.g., multiple dates) and the default behavior of 'date' is only in the schema. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 only 50%: the 'date' parameter is described in the schema, but 'endpoint' is not. The tool description adds no parameter information and does not clarify the meaning of 'endpoint' (e.g., which Graph API version). The enum provides allowed values, but semantics are incomplete.

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's purpose: providing snapshot metadata with entity/property/enum counts, CSDL size, and change count. It also includes a concrete use case ('How big is Graph API now?'), which distinguishes it from siblings focused on history, changes, or schema graphs.

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 implies usage for understanding overall snapshot size and trends. It gives context ('trend analysis') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to choose this over related tools like get_recent_changes or schema_change_report. Still, the context is clear enough for a basic decision.

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