graph_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly discloses that this is a raw GET call, implying read-only behavior and no abstraction over response formatting. However, it does not mention authentication, error behavior, pagination, or how the raw response is returned, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose and one example. It front-loads the core function and includes a concrete usage sample without filler.

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 no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and only an output schema as a fallback, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation beyond simple cases. The params object, path construction rules, and failure behavior are missing, leaving significant details to inference.

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 the description must explain the parameters. The example clarifies path and fields semantics ('me/accounts', 'id,name'), but the params object is entirely unexplained, and path formatting rules (e.g., leading slashes, versioning) are not addressed. Two of three parameters are illustrated; the third is silent.

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 action—raw GET on the Graph API—and positions itself as an escape hatch for uncovered endpoints. This clearly distinguishes graph_get from the many sibling tools that wrap specific endpoints.

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 phrase 'échappatoire pour un endpoint non couvert' tells the agent to use this tool when no dedicated sibling covers the needed endpoint. It is implicit rather than explicit, and it does not name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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