tigergraph__generate_cypher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates that the tool generates a query (not executing it) and mentions the output format: 'wrapped in TigerGraph's INTERPRET OPENCYPHER QUERY format.' This clarifies the tool's non-destructive nature and expected deliverable.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and tightly structured. It covers the action, the differentiator, the output format, and a parameter requirement without any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for invoking the tool: it states the input (natural language description), the output (wrapped Cypher query), and the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly describe the return type or potential error conditions, though this is not critical for a generation tool without an output schema.

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 schema descriptions already cover all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining why graph_name is required ('as the query needs to specify the target graph') and provides examples for query_description. This goes beyond the schema, clarifying the rationale and usage.

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's purpose: 'Generate an openCypher query from a natural language description using an LLM.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'when you prefer Cypher syntax over GSQL', which sets it apart from generate_gsql and other query generation tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool when you prefer Cypher syntax over GSQL.' This is a clear condition for selecting this tool over alternatives. It also explains why graph_name is required, reinforcing the intended use case.

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