tigergraph__get_graph_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns schema only, not queries or jobs, which communicates the read-only nature and the scope of the result. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is non-destructive or lacks side effects, though it is strongly implied by the word 'get'.

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-organized with clear headings (Use When, Quick Start, Tips) and is concise without unnecessary repetition. It effectively communicates the essential information in a scannable format.

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 an agent to correctly invoke the tool: it explains what data will be returned, when to use it, and provides a concrete example. It also points to related tools for different needs, making the overall context complete for this simple read operation.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (profile and graph_name), covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description itself adds only a quick start example (graph_name: 'SocialNetwork') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 schema of a specific graph, returning vertex types, edge types, and attributes as structured JSON. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_graph_details and list_graphs, making its 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 description provides explicit use cases (e.g., needing to know vertex/edge types, building/validating queries) and directly instructs when to use alternatives: 'For a full listing including queries and jobs, use show_graph_details' and 'For just graph names, use list_graphs'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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