meta_list_edge_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the operation is read-only, allowlisted, and paginated via cursor. However, it does not mention response shape, potential rate limits, or any edge-specific behaviors, leaving the agent with only a partial understanding of what will happen.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. The first sentence packs the essential semantics (list, read-only, allowlisted, fields, filters, cursor pagination) and the second adds the usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 generic raw-edge tool with 11 parameters, nested filtering objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain return values, field-selection semantics, filtering syntax, or edge-specific constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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 only 18%, and most parameters (fields, filtering, since, until, before, after, limit, includeSummary) have no descriptions. The description mentions filters and cursor pagination at a high level but does not clarify syntax, valid formats, or how parameters interact, so it fails to compensate for the low 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 states a specific action ('List'), a precise resource ('allowlisted read-only Meta Graph edge'), and scope ('caller-selected flat fields, filters, and cursor pagination'). It also differentiates itself from specialized tools by framing itself as the fallback for broad metadata/entity discovery.

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 gives a clear usage condition: use when a specialized tool does not expose a newly added field. It does not enumerate which siblings to prefer or explicitly say 'do not use' for specialized queries, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to route appropriately.

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