get_schema_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an overview with entity names, relationships, and metadata, and that field details are omitted. It does not mention side effects or auth requirements, but for a read-only schema discovery tool, this is adequate. Slightly more could be said about potential performance or caching, but it's not critical.

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, using only three sentences plus a returns line and workflow. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, clarifying scope, and providing workflow guidance. 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?

Given the low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return value (overview with entities, relationships, metadata) and explicitly states what is omitted (field details). The workflow provides full context for integration with sibling tools.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (entity names, relationships, metadata) and the workflow context. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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 explicitly states that the tool provides an overview of the data model structure, including nodes, relationships, and metadata. It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning that field details are omitted and that get_schema_entity should be used for specifics. The workflow clearly positions it as the starting point.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This is your starting point!' and advises against using it for detailed field exploration, directing to get_schema_entity. It also includes a complete workflow sequence: start here, then use get_schema_entity, generate_query_template, validate_query, execute_graphql.

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