graph_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only check operation but doesn't state error behavior (e.g., what happens if the graph is disconnected, whether it throws, returns partial results), rate limits, or what specific counts are returned. This is a read operation, but minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, the phrase 'graph connection' is slightly ambiguous in context (connection status vs. connectivity diagnostics), and 'record counts' could be more specific about what records count against.

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 has no parameters, complete enough for a diagnostic check. The output schema exists and presumably documents the return structure. However, the description could clarify what error/status signaling occurs if the graph is unreachable, and whether record counts represent the full graph or some subset.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing to document. With no params, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description clearly conveys what the tool returns (record counts) without needing parameter documentation.

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 clear purpose: check graph connection and return record counts. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('graph'), distinguishes its diagnostic function from the sibling tools which perform search, retrieval, and mutation operations on graph data.

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 'check' verb implies a diagnostic/health-check use case. Context around when to run this (e.g., before queries, after connection issues, to validate the graph is responsive) is absent but somewhat implicit given the phrasing and zero parameters.

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