Fetch a UBO graph

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail beyond annotations by specifying the async status expectation ('once status is ready') and the returned graph content (nodes, edges, risk, flagged patterns).

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the action and resource, then give the prerequisite, then describe the outcome. No filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool, the description is complete: it states the prerequisite, the readiness condition, and the returned content despite lacking an output schema. An agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains graph_id as returned by ubo_screen. The description reinforces that same relationship but does not add new format, constraints, or default information, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and names the exact resource: the status/result of a UBO graph build initiated by ubo_screen. It clearly distinguishes itself from the related sibling ubo_screen by focusing on retrieval rather than creation.

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?

It gives clear context: call this only after ubo_screen has returned a graph_id, and wait until status is 'ready' for the full result. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops one step short of full routing guidance.

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