discover_graph_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output structure (each tool with name, description, action values) and the grouping behavior, and 'List' implies a safe read, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether results are static or tenant-dependent, or any rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The third sentence about return shape is arguably redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, filtering, and return shape adequately. The only real gap is the absent pointer to when this tool should be called relative to the manage_* siblings.

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 compensate for the single parameter. It does so partially by marking the filter as optional and giving concrete example values ('devices', 'users', 'policies'), but it does not state the matching semantics (exact vs partial, case sensitivity) or what an empty default means.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all supported Graph operations') and the scope of grouping ('by tool/domain'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling manage_* action tools, which perform mutations rather than discovery.

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?

Usage is implied – this is a discovery/meta tool you call to learn what operations exist before invoking a manage_* tool – but the description never says so explicitly, nor does it state when-not to use it or name an alternative. The optional category filter is the only usage hint.

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