tigergraph__generate_cypher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the output is an LLM-generated query wrapped in INTERPRET OPENCYPHER QUERY format, and the tool depends on env var configuration (LLM_MODEL, LLM_PROVIDER). No contradiction with the 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and sibling differentiation before the config details. There is minor redundancy — the graph_name requirement is restated from the schema — but the prose is compact and each sentence 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return value. It mentions the query is 'wrapped in TigerGraph's INTERPRET OPENCYPHER QUERY format', which hints at the output shape, but it never explicitly states what the tool returns (e.g., the generated query string). For a generation tool this is a notable but not severe gap, given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters fully. The description adds context mostly around graph_name (why it is required), but does not add syntax/format detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), resource ('openCypher query'), and method ('from a natural language description using an LLM'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tigergraph__generate_gsql by explicitly routing 'when you prefer Cypher syntax over GSQL'. An agent can immediately tell what this does and which alternative it is not.

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 gives an explicit usage condition ('Use this tool when you prefer Cypher syntax over GSQL'), which names the sibling alternative and the deciding factor. It also justifies the graph_name requirement. It doesn't go so far as to list exclusions (e.g., when to execute a query instead), but the primary selection axis against generate_gsql is clearly stated.

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