graphex_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'statistics' but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, does not describe output format, potential errors, or any side effects. The description is too thin to give an agent confidence about what to expect beyond the basic counts.

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 minimal—a single colon-separated phrase—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core idea and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It tells an agent what the tool does and what it returns conceptually (node/edge counts). However, it omits details like whether the counts reflect the entire graph or a current state, and it does not mention if there is any filtering or scope. Still, for a trivial status tool, the coverage is adequate.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema is empty, and the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The description adequately communicates that no inputs are required.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Graph statistics' with the detail 'node/edge counts.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct from sibling tools like graphex_query or graphex_glossary, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context—it simply states what it does. For a tool that provides stats, an agent might need to know when to call it instead of a query, but no such direction is provided.

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