get_graph_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('formatted as tables and descriptions') and purpose ('analyzing graph structure'), but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. The first sentence covers retrieval and return format, while the second provides context. There's minimal waste, though the phrase 'Perfect for' could be slightly more formal.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving detailed graph data with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return format but lacks details on behavioral traits and output structure. For a tool with no structured output information, more elaboration on what 'comprehensive information' includes would be beneficial, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'graphId' documented as 'The unique identifier for the graph to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed graph data from Pythagraph RED API'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_graph_summary' by emphasizing 'detailed' and 'comprehensive information'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool's functionality beyond implying more detail.

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 implies usage context by stating it's 'Perfect for analyzing graph structure and getting detailed insights', which suggests when to use this tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'get_graph_summary' or any exclusions, leaving the distinction somewhat vague.

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