get_graph_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of return format, pagination, time-range behavior, or any limits. It essentially restates the resource and purpose without enriching the agent's understanding beyond what the annotations and schema already provide.

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 a single sentence of seven words, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. It is not verbose, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the brevity is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and only a terse description, the agent lacks key context: what does 'graph image data' actually return (binary image, base64, URL)? How do start_time and end_time affect the result? The description does not compensate for the missing output schema, and the schema descriptions only cover parameter types, not the overall invocation context.

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 100%, so all six parameters are documented with type and description (e.g., device_datasource_id is explicitly sourced from get_device_datasources). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline expectation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get graph image data' with a stated purpose 'for visualization'. It is clear in its core function but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_device_data or get_website_data, which also retrieve data for visualization. The name itself is descriptive, but the description alone does not disambiguate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over get_device_data or other get_* tools. The description offers no exclusions or usage conditions, leaving the agent to infer.

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