graph_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantive behavioral constraints beyond them: KQL write operators and external-access operators are blocked, and 'scope' is validated against the Azure scope format. These are real operational facts an agent needs (query may be rejected on syntax grounds) and go past the annotation surface.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action, then the read-only constraint, then the scope-validation rule. No padding, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a 4-parameter query tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is thin: it never explains what a 'capability_id' is, what the query is run against, or what shape of result to expect. The scope-validation note helps but does not close the gap.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies 'scope' (validated against Azure scope format), while 'query', 'limit', and the required 'capability_id' are left entirely unexplained, including how capability_id relates to the query target.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Executa consulta parametrizada em fontes que aceitam query (ex.: Azure Resource Graph)'. An agent can tell this executes parameterized queries against query-capable sources. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many graph_* siblings (graph_list, graph_get, graph_relationship, graph_answer_identity_question), leaving the boundary fuzzy.

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 names the source category ('fontes que aceitam query') but gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as graph_list, graph_get, or graph_answer_identity_question. No prerequisites, no mention of when this is preferable to a more targeted sibling.

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