execute_graphql

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions running queries or mutations, implying both read and write, but does not detail potential destructive effects, error handling, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (arbitrary GraphQL) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It covers basic purpose and when to use but leaves gaps about error behavior, result format, and potential side effects. Adequate for a fallback tool but not fully complete.

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%, so description must compensate. It adds that `variables` is an optional dict of GraphQL variables, providing some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the `query` parameter beyond its name. Partial compensation.

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 clearly states it runs arbitrary Wiki.js GraphQL queries/mutations and distinguishes from typed tools by specifying 'for operations not covered by the typed tools.' This provides a specific verb and resource with clear scope.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for operations not covered by typed tools, providing clear context for when to use it. It implies not to use when a typed tool exists, but does not include explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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