graphql_introspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's read-only (explicitly stated), makes a single POST request (side effects), and returns specific data (introspection_enabled, types, mutations, queries). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what parameters imply.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second elaborates on scope and output, and the third covers side effects and read-only nature. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient with zero waste.

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's complexity (GraphQL introspection with authentication parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, output structure, and side effects. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or linking to sibling tools for better context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (url, auth_header, auth_cookie) with descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Run introspection query to enumerate all types, fields, and mutations.' It specifies the verb ('run introspection query'), resource ('GraphQL API schema'), and scope ('all types, fields, and mutations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'graphql_find_hidden' which likely has a different focus.

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 description implies usage for discovering the full API schema, including hidden/undocumented elements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'graphql_find_hidden' or other recon tools. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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