graphql_api_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description is consistent with those annotations and conveys a single-item read operation, but it adds no further behavioral context such as whether the definition is included or what fields are returned.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, which is ideal for agent consumption.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID operation with fully documented parameters and readOnly annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, the existence of graphql_api_get_definition creates ambiguity that this description does not resolve, and there is no output schema to clarify what 'details' means.

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 100%, and both parameters have basic descriptions ('The workspace ID', 'The GraphQL API ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('GraphQL API'), and the singular scope ('a specific item'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool graphql_api_get_definition, so 'details' vs 'definition' introduces mild ambiguity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like graphql_api_get_definition or graphql_api_execute_query. The description implies a general 'get details' use case but does not state any exclusions or preferred conditions, leaving tool selection unclear.

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