query_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe reads. The description adds that it builds a graph and queries it, but does not disclose details like caching behavior or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with two sentences plus examples, front-loading the main action. One could argue it could include a brief note on when to prefer over siblings, but it is not wasteful.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of routes, JSON). Given complexity and sibling context, this is a minor gap. The description is functional but not fully complete.

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 description does not add significant meaning beyond schema. The examples illustrate valid queries but the parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 queries an API graph with natural language, specifies that it builds a graph of routes, models, frontend components, and middleware, and provides concrete examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_routes or audit_auth_flow which are more specific.

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 for ad-hoc queries but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to siblings. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from examples and sibling names.

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