get_graph_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool provides a 'concise summary' and mentions an optional parameter for more details, but it lacks information on behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or waste.

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 (read operation with 2 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and basic usage, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or integration with the sibling tool. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('graphId' and 'includeDetails'). The description adds some value by explaining that 'includeDetails=true' enables 'more comprehensive analysis', but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('graph data from Pythagraph RED API'), and it distinguishes the tool by specifying it provides a 'concise summary' with 'overview statistics, node/edge type distributions, and key insights without overwhelming detail'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_graph_data', which likely provides more detailed data.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for a 'concise summary' with 'overview statistics' and 'key insights without overwhelming detail'. It also mentions an alternative usage mode ('Use includeDetails=true for more comprehensive analysis'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_graph_data' or provide exclusions.

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