get_graph_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently lists the statistics retrieved. Every word earns its place by specifying the metrics (node counts by type, edges, phases, decision points, loops), with no redundant or vague language. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get statistics'), making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (a statistical tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It states what statistics are retrieved but does not cover behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), parameter details, or return format. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper use without relying on external knowledge.

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 input schema has one parameter ('graph_id') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention parameters at all. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to add any semantic context (e.g., what 'graph_id' represents or format expectations), reducing the score. It relies entirely on the schema, which lacks descriptions, resulting in minimal but not inadequate 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get statistics') and enumerates the types of statistics returned (node counts by type, edges, phases, decision points, loops). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_state_graph_info' or 'list_nodes' by focusing on statistical metrics rather than general information or listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_state_graph_info' (which might overlap in providing graph metadata) and 'list_nodes' (which focuses on node listings), there is no indication of when this statistical tool is preferred or what prerequisites (e.g., graph existence) are needed. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, lacking explicit context.

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