radiofrance_graphql

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that mutations are possible, which is important, and mentions using an API token in the hosted explorer. However, it does not explain authentication requirements for actual execution, rate limits, error behavior, or side effects beyond the word 'mutation'.

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 well structured and appropriately sized: it front-loads the purpose, provides the documentation link, gives discovery guidance, and then clearly documents both parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and only two parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to discover the GraphQL schema, and how to supply parameters. It could be more explicit about authentication for API calls, but the mention of an API token in the explorer partially addresses this.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'query' is a GraphQL document and that 'variables' is optional and should be omitted or an empty dict when unused. This adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the bare schema types.

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 the tool executes a GraphQL query or mutation against the Radio France Open API, naming the specific resource and action. This differentiates it from the sibling tools, which target unrelated data sources and APIs.

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 clear context by linking to the upstream API documentation and directing users to use introspection or the hosted explorer to discover fields and types. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but there are no similar GraphQL siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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