tigergraph__discover_tools

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the output contents (recommended tools, use cases, complexity ratings, prerequisites, related tools, example parameters), which is not apparent from the schema alone. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 well-structured with clear headers and a concrete example, making it easy to scan. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but each section adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It earns a 4 for its organized, informative layout without being bloated.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers when to use, what to expect as output, and provides an example invocation. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (limit, category, task_description) are already well described in the schema. The description adds an example for task_description and clarifies the default behavior of limit and category, but this is marginal beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('TigerGraph tools'), and it is unambiguous about its purpose as a meta-tool for tool selection. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which perform specific operations, making it obvious when this one is needed.

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 explicitly lists three concrete scenarios for use: when unsure which tool to use, when exploring capabilities, and when needing suggestions. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke it, and since it is a unique discovery tool, no alternatives are needed.

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