list_graphs

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 only says 'List of graphs' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, whether archived graphs are included, or any other behavioral details.

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 extremely concise, with no wasted words. It is a short noun phrase that conveys the resource type and scope, though it lacks a full sentence structure and additional context.

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 simplicity of the tool and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is under-specified. It identifies the resource (graphs) and scope (bot) but does not state the action explicitly, explain the parameter, or mention any return information, leaving significant gaps.

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 input schema has one required parameter botId with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description's phrase 'of the bot' hints that botId identifies the bot, but it does not explain the parameter format, how to obtain it, or its role beyond that vague association.

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 lists graphs (scenarios) for a bot. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_graph (singular) and create_graph by implying a plural listing operation, though it does not explicitly name any 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools like get_graph or list_channels.

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