graph_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that a single read is 'bounded' and 'verified', which hints at size limits and validation behavior. However, it doesn't elaborate on failure modes, authentication requirements, or side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and modes. No filler or redundant information is present, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, four parameters, and 0% schema coverage, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The output schema may cover return values, but missing usage guidance and parameter semantics leave the description incomplete for an autonomous agent.

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%, and the description adds no explicit meaning to the four parameters. While names like run_id and max_bytes are self-explanatory, the description doesn't clarify how they interact or which parameters apply to which mode (list vs read), failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses specific verbs ('List', 'read') and identifies the resource ('run graphs') and a distinguishing trait ('bounded, verified graph payload'). It clearly indicates two operational modes (list vs. read single). However, it doesn't reference sibling tools to explicitly differentiate from similar retrieval tools like artifact_read or load_figure.

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 no guidance on when to use graph_get versus alternatives such as artifact_read, results_get, or load_figure. The context of 'run graphs' is implied, but there are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or comparisons.

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