tigergraph__get_global_schema

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that the tool runs the GSQL 'LS' command and returns its output, which implies a read-only schema retrieval. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no mutations or side effects occur, nor does it mention potential permission requirements. While the name and content imply safety, an explicit read-only note would improve 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 well-structured with clear sections: overview, use cases, a quick-start example, tips, and related tools. It is informative but not padded, and the quick-start JSON snippet is a useful, concise illustration. The content is efficiently organized and easy to scan.

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 a good overview of what the tool returns (output from GSQL 'LS', showing all graphs), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It also includes tips and related tools for broader context. However, it does not specify the exact structure or format of the returned schema data, which could leave agents uncertain about parsing the result. Given the tool's simplicity and the provided hints, it is mostly complete but could explicitly state the return format.

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 only parameter, 'profile', is fully described in the input schema: it names a connection profile, explains the default behavior when omitted, and directs to 'list_connections' for available profiles. The Quick Start section also confirms no parameters are required. This completely covers the parameter's purpose 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 retrieves the complete global schema including all global vertex types, edge types, graphs, and their member types, and specifically mentions it runs the GSQL 'LS' command. It also distinguishes this from related tools like 'show_graph_details' and 'get_graph_schema' by noting it covers all graphs at once, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'Use When' section explicitly lists applicable scenarios (e.g., seeing all graphs and schemas, database-level exploration, finding all vertex/edge types across graphs). It also provides a clear alternative: 'For single graph details, use show_graph_details instead' and lists related tools. This gives agents concrete guidance on when to select this tool over siblings.

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