rsc_describe_operation_full

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: recursive expansion 'up to depth levels' and the important constraint that interface fields are ONLY accessible via inline fragments. It discloses output structure, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. The return section is somewhat verbose, but since there is no output schema, that detail earns its place.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description must carry both input and output detail, and it does: it documents all three parameters and describes the return payload keys (expanded_types, return_type_fields, inline_fragments). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries full parameter burden and does so well: it defines name format (camelCase, with example), operation_type enum values ('query' or 'mutation'), and depth semantics including its default of 2. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get an operation's signature with all input types expanded inline.' It further distinguishes itself from the sibling rsc_describe_type by noting it 'combines the operation lookup and rsc_describe_type into one call.' Clear and differentiated, though the exact GraphQL-specific scope could be tightened.

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 implies when to use it ('so you have everything needed to construct a correct query without guessing') and references the sibling it supersedes, rsc_describe_type. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or clear routing rule versus calling rsc_describe_type directly — usage is inferred rather than stated.

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