List property graphs

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it reads from a specific system view, mentions version-dependent behavior, and notes that early Beta builds may lack the catalog view. No contradiction with readOnlyHint annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded, covering purpose, source, edge cases, return structure, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no 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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete: it explains the action, data source, edge cases, return format, and provides an example. The output schema handles return type details.

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% with the description already in the schema. The description restates the optionality of the database parameter but adds no new semantic information. Meets the baseline for covered parameters.

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 states it lists SQL/PGQ property graphs and specifies the source system view. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_graphs', which may list other graph types, so purpose is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 context on when results may be empty (PG<19, missing catalog view) and suggests using 'get_pgq_status' for disambiguation. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the edge-case guidance is helpful.

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