gograph_capabilities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces 'Read-only; no side effects' and adds context about the server prerequisite, caching recommendation, and that the return includes known limitations. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't reveal any surprising behaviors.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, prerequisites, side-effect statement, WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, and RETURNS. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and it's concise enough to read quickly without wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, how often, prerequisites, return format, and even known limitations. The annotations cover safety, so no gaps remain in 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description doesn't need to explain parameters but does describe the return value (structured JSON with tool names, purposes, workflows, limitations), which is helpful for an agent deciding what to expect. Baseline of 4 fits given no parameters to document.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all available gograph MCP tools' along with their purposes and recommended agent workflows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are analytical or graph-specific, by positioning it as a meta-orientation tool.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' (call once per session to orient before analytical queries) and 'NOT TO USE' (do not repeat after capabilities are cached), plus a prerequisite ('once the project-scoped MCP server has started, no graph-state prerequisite'). This gives clear guidance on when to invoke it versus alternatives.

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