introspection-graphql-web

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 describes the tool's function (introspection to get schema information) and context (before queries). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the schema information returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in a single sentence. It front-loads the purpose ('Introspection Sitecore GraphQL web schema') followed by the usage guideline. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (introspection operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects (safety, authentication, return format) or differentiate from siblings. For a tool that presumably returns schema information, the absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at what to expect, but it doesn't.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage context without redundant parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description is otherwise adequate.

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: 'Introspection Sitecore GraphQL web schema' (verb+resource). It specifies that it 'get[s] the schema information' for GraphQL queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'introspection-graphql-master' or other query tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific web schema introspection versus alternatives.

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 for usage: 'use this tool before doing a query to get the schema information if you do not have it available as a resource already.' This gives a specific when-to-use scenario (pre-query when schema is unknown). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (like the sibling 'introspection-graphql-master'), which prevents a perfect score.

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