get_graph_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares the always-returned payload and which optional reports are appended by each flag. It stops short of stating that the tool is read-only or noting any cost/latency of the heavier reports.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the guaranteed return set before the opt-in behavior. The second sentence is a long enumeration but each clause maps to a distinct flag, so little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the always-present fields; it also explains all four opt-in reports. Adequate for a 9-param, zero-required diagnostic tool, with only the scoping/filter parameters left entirely to the schema.

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% and each parameter already has a description, so the description's flag summary largely restates it. It adds grouping value by pairing each include_* flag with the report it appends, but the scoping params (node_types, path_prefix, exclude_path, generated_code_mode) go unmentioned at the tool level.

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 ('Return graph metadata, health, and diagnostics in one call') and enumerates exactly what comes back, so an agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby get_architecture_summary or query_graph siblings, which would have made it a 5.

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 through 'in one call' and the opt-in flags, but never says when to reach for this versus get_architecture_summary, query_graph, or reload_graph, and gives no exclusions. Useful but inference-required.

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