gograph_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so much is covered. The description nonetheless adds real value by stating there is no graph-state prerequisite once the server has started and by describing the return payload, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then labeled WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS sections. Every sentence carries distinct information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return contents (version, tool names, purposes, workflow sequences, limitations). An agent knows exactly what it gets and when to invoke it.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The schema is empty and the description correctly implies a no-arg invocation, so no parameter clarification is needed or missing.

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 precise verb (List) and a clearly scoped set of resources: server version, all registered MCP tools, their purposes, and recommended workflows. This meta/self-description role is unmistakably distinct from every analytical sibling such as gograph_summary or gograph_stats.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE ('call once per session to orient before issuing analytical queries') and NOT TO USE ('do not repeat after capabilities are cached'). Both the triggering condition and the anti-pattern are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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