superops_custom_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level action. It does not disclose whether queries are read-only, what happens on invalid GraphQL, error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The term 'query' hints at a read operation but is not explicit.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second states the use case. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

This is a raw GraphQL execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to supply more operational context to be complete. It lacks guidance on response shape, error conditions, query scope limitations, or how it relates to custom_mutation. The current description is adequate for identifying the tool but not for safely invoking it in advanced scenarios.

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%, with the schema already explaining 'The GraphQL query string' and 'Variables to pass to the query'. The description adds context about the API and advanced use, but it does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description states a specific action ('Run a custom GraphQL query') and scope ('against the SuperOps.ai API'). It also differentiates from standard sibling tools by noting it is for advanced use cases not covered by them. The distinction from the sibling custom_mutation is implied by the GraphQL query/mutation vocabulary, which is sufficient.

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 phrase 'For advanced use cases not covered by standard tools' clearly indicates when to use this tool and implies that standard tools should be preferred for ordinary operations. It does not explicitly mention custom_mutation as the alternative for write operations, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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