iota_graphql_query

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the query can mutate data, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. The description only states what the tool does, not behavioral characteristics such as safety or side effects.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity—one parameter, no output schema—the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks guidance on response format, mutation risk, or when to use this over dedicated tools, which would enhance completeness for an agent deciding between alternatives.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, which is already documented as 'GraphQL query string'. The description adds little beyond this, only the context that it is a raw query against the IOTA endpoint. Baseline 3 is appropriate with full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('raw GraphQL query against the IOTA GraphQL endpoint'), clearly distinguishing it from the operation-specific sibling tools like iota_get_price or iota_epoch_info. It immediately signals a generic, flexible query tool.

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 provided on when to use this raw query tool versus the dedicated sibling tools. The word 'raw' implies it's for custom queries not covered elsewhere, but this is not explicitly stated, and there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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