list_graphs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds value by disclosing which graph identifiers are deprecated (waldo, psfk) and what valid alternatives to use. It also hints at the call being a fast registry lookup. It stops short of noting result size or pagination behavior, so not a full 5.

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 with the action and guidance, and the deprecated-identifier warning earns its place. The trailing parenthetical '(Fast graph registry metadata lookup.)' is redundant restatement of the opening clause and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields and flagging stale graph IDs. For a single-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only result-size or pagination expectations for a full listing are unaddressed.

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 userId is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions userId or its trial-user usage nuance, adding no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List all knowledge graphs the user can access') and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, descriptions, authors, sectors, signal counts). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_graph, get_node, and toggle_graph_preference, which operate on a single graph or its contents.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'Use FIRST in any session to discover available sources before searching,' establishing sequencing against the search/graph-detail siblings. It also states the downstream purpose: the metadata is needed for graphId parameters in other tools, so the agent knows why and when to call it.

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