graphql_query

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavior beyond executing a query. It fails to mention error handling, rate limits, whether the query is read-only, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context.

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 two sentences long, which is efficient. The first sentence is crucial usage guidance, and the second explains the benefit. A bit more detail on what the GraphQL interface offers could improve, but overall it avoids unnecessary text.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return structure, but it does not. The prerequisite guidance and parameter info are adequate for a query tool with 4 well-documented parameters. Missing details on response format or pagination limit completeness.

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 100%, and the description adds little meaningful info beyond what is in the schema. It mentions that space ID and CDA token are auto-retrieved, which is helpful context but does not deepen understanding of parameter semantics beyond schema definitions.

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 GraphQL queries against Contentful API, emphasizing flexibility. The verb 'execute' and resource 'GraphQL query' are specific. However, it could differentiate more from sibling tools like smart_search or build_search_query.

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 explicitly instructs to first use graphql_list_content_types and graphql_get_content_type_schema before using this tool. This provides clear, actionable guidance on when and how to use the tool, distinguishing it from alternatives.

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