graph_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. Read-only/no-side-effect behavior is strongly implied by the nature of a status report, but the description never states it, nor mentions permissions, cost, or whether it triggers indexing. It adds no behavioral context beyond the bare content list.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the most useful information (row counts) is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a well-formed statement, which slightly limits clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema that documents the return values, the description only needs to orient the agent. Saying it reports row counts and database location is sufficient for a simple, no-argument status tool, though a hint about when to use it would round it out.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not attempt to explain any inputs.

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 names the resource ('the database') and the kind of information returned ('row counts', 'where the database lives'), so an agent can infer this is a status/introspection tool. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb and never states the action ('report'/'retrieve'), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_architecture_overview or index_repository_tool. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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 call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name 'graph_status' (check database state before/after indexing or querying). No explicit context is provided.

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