graphql_security_check

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing that it uses pure Python httpx requests (no subprocess), performs no mutations, and requires allowed_hosts configuration. This gives strong transparency into behavior and safety.

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?

Well-organized with clear sections for summary, checks, args, returns, and notes. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes it easy to scan without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return values (also supported by output schema), prerequisites, and safety profile. No obvious gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 'Args' section explains every parameter (url, check_introspection, authenticated, auth_header, timeout) with examples and semantics, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Clearly states it 'Perform automated GraphQL security checks' and lists specific check categories (introspection, query batching, depth limit, field suggestion), which distinguishes it from general-purpose scanners among sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear context for GraphQL security testing and includes practical notes like allowed_hosts requirement, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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