persistent_graph_stats_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool retrieves statistics and details the return fields, which implies a read-only operation. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects, error behavior, or permission requirements, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then concisely enumerates the return metrics. There is no redundant information or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

For a simple statistics tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists what the tool returns and states its purpose. However, it omits important context such as usage timing, prerequisites, and parameter semantics, which are not covered by schemas or annotations. This makes the description only minimally complete.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (projectId, workingDirectory), and the description does not compensate by explaining their meaning or format. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-evident, the 0% schema coverage and absence of any parameter guidance in the description leave the agent without sufficient information to construct valid inputs.

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 ('Get') and resource ('persistent graph store for a project') and explicitly lists the returned statistics (node count, edge count, Kameda index status, backend type, last update timestamp). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rag_stats_tool, which targets the RAG store.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions (e.g., that a project must exist, or that the working directory must be valid). It simply states what the tool does, leaving usage entirely implied.

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