Xray Graphql Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the result contains signatures and field docs, which is largely return-value information already served by the output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no waste: the resource and the returned artifact are stated immediately. It is arguably too terse to carry routing information, but nothing is padded.

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 an output schema present, return format needs no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is contextual: in a 70+ sibling toolset, the description omits the key workflow relation to xray_graphql_query and xray_graphql_mutation.

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 the single 'names' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the example array and the 'omit to list all' behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('the Xray GraphQL schema') plus what it returns (signatures, field docs of queries, mutations, types). It is distinguishable from the many entity-CRUD siblings, though it never distinguishes itself from the closely related xray_graphql_query/xray_graphql_mutation tools.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling xray_graphql_query or xray_graphql_mutation, but the description never says so, nor when to omit names vs. pass them (that hint lives only in the schema).

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