get_subgraph_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'full schema' indicating a complete introspection response, but does not disclose read-only nature, potential response size, error handling, or any prerequisites. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no redundant or filler words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately states the purpose but lacks details about the response format or how to select a subgraph. Given the minimal complexity, it is sufficient but not comprehensive, leaving some gaps for an agent to fill.

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 schema provides an enum for the 'subgraph' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. However, the schema's description lists only five of the eight enum values, which could be misleading, but that is a schema issue rather than the tool description's responsibility.

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 identifies the action ('get'), the resource ('full GraphQL schema (introspection)'), and the scope ('for a Polymarket subgraph'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like query_subgraph, which executes queries, and list_subgraphs, which lists available subgraphs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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