tigergraph__get_global_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the info that it runs GSQL 'LS' command and shows all graphs, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe output format or potential size/performance considerations, and names similarly scoped sibling tools without fully differentiating them, so it's decent but not exceptional.

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: main purpose, use-when, quick start, tips, and related tools. Every section adds value, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with complete schema and safety annotations, the description provides all necessary usage context: what it returns, when to use it, and related tools. The output schema is absent, but the description implies it returns output from the LS command. Complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% — the only parameter 'profile' is fully documented in the schema (including default and how to use it). The description adds no parameter-specific info beyond that, but since the schema covers everything, baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does clarify that no parameters are needed, which is a small add.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'global schema', listing the exact contents (all global vertex types, edge types, graphs, member types). It also names the GSQL command executed, which distinguishes it from related tools like get_graph_schema and show_graph_details.

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 scenarios for using this tool, and the 'Related Tools' section names alternatives such as list_graphs, show_graph_details, and get_graph_schema. The Tips section even advises to use show_graph_details for single graph details, effectively communicating when not to use this tool.

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