introspect-schema

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') and mentions conflict resolution, but does not clarify if this involves side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output structure. The phrase 'resolve conflicts' is ambiguous and could mislead an AI about mutability.

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 sentence of 12 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns. It does not explain the nature of the returned type definitions or what 'resolve conflicts' entails. As a simple tool, more context about the output or the conflict resolution mechanism would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the only parameter 'typeNames' ('List of type names to introspect'). The description adds no further meaning beyond this. With 100% schema coverage, the description's contribution is minimal, warranting a baseline score.

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 specifies the action ('Retrieve full type definitions and resolve conflicts') and the resource ('all system nodes'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'query-graphql', implying this tool is for schema introspection rather than data querying. However, it could explicitly mention GraphQL to enhance clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'query-graphql' or any other alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, nor when not to use it. The sibling relationship offers implicit context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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