Graph Stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it is scoped by vault, whether results are cached, or anything beyond the summary of the returned metrics.

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 terse fragment. It is short, but this reflects under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope to earn its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage guidance the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell when to reach for it or how the vault argument changes the result.

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% and the single 'vault' parameter (optional, default null) is never mentioned in the description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it adds no meaning about what scoping the vault parameter applies.

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 fragment 'Node/edge counts by kind and type' is specific about the resource (graph nodes/edges) and the shape of what it returns (counts grouped by kind and type). It distinguishes the tool as a read-only stats/aggregate tool, though it provides no verb and no explicit differentiation from siblings like get_status or neighbors.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told whether this should be preferred over get_status for inspecting graph health, nor under what conditions to call it.

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