🗂️ Reviewing graph schema…

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, etc. The description adds context about what to verify (PKs, time columns, semantic types) but does not disclose any behavior beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main action and provides a bullet list of items inspected. It is clear but slightly wordy (~90 words for a zero-parameter tool).

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 zero parameters, clear annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, why it matters, and what it inspects.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 states 'Inspect the current graph metadata' and details what is inspected (primary keys, time columns, columns semantic types, links). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_graph_metadata' or 'materialize_graph'.

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 before running the RFM model by stating 'Confirming that the metadata is set up correctly is crucial for the RFM model'. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives.

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