graph_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns coverage statistics and has no side effects (read-only). However, it does not detail auth needs, rate limits, or performance characteristics.

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 concise with a clear title line and structured Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary details without verbosity. Minor improvement could be more brevity in the Chinese phrasing.

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 (one optional param, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. It mentions return type ('覆盖率统计信息') but doesn't detail exact fields; output schema likely fills that gap. Complete for a status tool.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining doc_id is optional ('若无则返回全局统计'). Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so this explanation is valuable. Only one parameter, so limited but helpful.

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 it provides coverage statistics for entities, mentions, and claims per document or globally. It uses a specific verb ('查看' = view) and resource ('GraphRAG 覆盖状态'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like graph_health_check or ingest_status.

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 implies usage when needing coverage stats via the Args/Returns, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among the many siblings. No exclusions or when-to-use clarifications are provided.

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