tigergraph__get_node_degree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful semantic that degree means a count of connected edges, but it does not disclose return shape, node-not-found behavior, or default counting behavior beyond what the input schema already provides.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that concisely defines the tool's purpose without redundant phrasing or repetition of schema fields. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only counting operation, the combination of the description, complete parameter schema, and safety annotations is largely sufficient. It clearly expresses what is returned, a degree count; the only minor gap is the absence of edge-case behavior such as what happens when the vertex does not exist.

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%, so the input schema already explains all six parameters, including defaults for direction, edge_type, graph_name, and profile. The description adds little beyond the core concept of 'degree', meeting the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the degree (number of connected edges) of a node in a TigerGraph graph.' It is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_node_edges or get_vertex_count, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_edges, get_edge_count, or get_neighbors. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description, with no stated exclusions or conditions.

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