tigergraph__get_edge_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what it returns, or whether it counts all edge types by default. The 'get' prefix implies non-mutating behavior, but that is not made explicit.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 count operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of the return type, default behavior when edge_type is omitted, and potential cost or performance considerations, which could matter in large graphs.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, so the description itself does not need to add parameter details. It does not provide any extra context beyond the schema, such as default behavior or parameter interactions.

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?

Clearly states the action ('get the count') and resource ('edges in a TigerGraph graph'). It distinguishes itself from edge-data retrieval tools by focusing specifically on count, but does not explicitly differentiate from related count/degree 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 intent is implied by the word 'count' — an agent would use this when only an edge count is needed rather than edge details. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_edges or get_vertex_count.

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