graph_explain_throttling

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

With no annotations, the description fully conveys the tool's purpose as an informational explainer. It explicitly lists what it covers (causes, handling, limits), and while it doesn't state it has no side effects, its nature as a read-only explanation is clear.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant information or filler. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does and what topics it explains, providing all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds significant value by explaining the tool's purpose without needing to describe parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 explains Microsoft Graph throttling, including causes of 429 errors, handling Retry-After, and service-specific limits. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like graph_explain_errors or graph_explain_pagination.

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 understanding throttling issues but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios where other explain tools would be more appropriate.

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