Graph Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it returns aggregate counts only and has no side effects. It does not mention any additional behaviors (e.g., rate limits), but for a simple stats tool, this is sufficient. Slight deduction for not elaborating on output structure beyond listing stats.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and what it returns, while the second provides usage guidance and confirms no parameters. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and the richness of sibling tools, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and what it does not do (aggregates only). The agent can make an informed decision without needing additional 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?

The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description explicitly confirms 'No parameters,' which is clear and accurate. With schema coverage at 100% and no params, no additional detail is needed.

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 explicitly states it returns aggregate graph health statistics (node/edge counts, average weight, etc.), using a specific verb+resource ('Graph health dashboard'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tool graph_entities by noting it returns aggregates only, not individual entities.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: at session start, after graph_decay or graph_prune, or when debugging query output. It also explicitly excludes usage for individual entity lookup, directing users to graph_entities. This covers when-to-use and alternatives.

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