get_graph_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds that the output is a lightweight 'basic' summary limited to triple/entity counts, which usefully sets expectations, but says nothing about cost, latency, or the precondition of a loaded graph beyond the single adjective.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and appends the qualifying metric detail in parentheses. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a zero-parameter read-only tool has a small surface area to cover. The description is essentially sufficient; only the missing routing versus get_graph_schema keeps it from a 5.

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, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste space describing nonexistent inputs.

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 (Return) and resource (statistics about the loaded knowledge graph) and goes further by naming the exact metrics (triple/entity counts). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby get_graph_schema sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'loaded knowledge graph' hints the graph must already be loaded, and the metric list suggests a summary/overview use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of the get_graph_schema alternative that an agent might confuse this with.

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