Discover GraphQL endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds value beyond them: probes are 'bounded', restricted to same-origin paths, and introspection is described as optional and read-only, which tells the agent about scope and limits.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the probing mechanism and the same-origin constraint are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the semicolon clause somewhat crowds the core action.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies mechanism, origin scope, and introspection behavior, leaving only minor gaps around default paths and parameter interaction.

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 for three undocumented parameters. It partially does: 'conventional or supplied ... paths' explains the paths array versus default discovery, and 'optional introspection checks' maps to check_introspection, but it never clarifies the url vs paths relationship or the full semantics.

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 names a specific verb and mechanism ('Send bounded read-only __typename probes to ... paths') and identifies the resource as GraphQL endpoints, so an agent can distinguish it from generic crawlers. It does not name which sibling it supersedes (e.g. openapi_discovery, javascript_endpoint_discovery), so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives among the many discovery siblings (openapi_discovery, javascript_endpoint_discovery, source_map_discovery). 'Conventional or supplied same-origin paths' hints at the operating mode but does not route the agent between tools.

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