test-graph-api-exploration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'testing queries' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it makes read-only requests, requires special permissions, or could alter state), nor what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for an exploratory tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score.

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?

The tool is exploratory with a single enum parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description explains the goal but lacks practical guidance on how to use the test types, what results to expect, or any safety/behavioral warnings, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke effectively.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for testType, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's description ('Type of test to run') is minimal, but the enum values are present. No improvement provided by tool description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('Graph API queries'), and clearly states the goal of discovering hidden properties or endpoints for folder/group organization. This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools, which perform standard operations.

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: use this tool for exploratory discovery of hidden Graph API capabilities. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings, so the usage is implied.

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