tigergraph__get_query_metadata

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that it returns query parameters, types, and metadata and helps callers understand how to invoke the query. It does not detail the exact return shape or error behavior, but for a read-only metadata lookup with strong annotations this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with a clear definition and then organized into Use When, Quick Start, Tips, and Related Tools sections, with no filler. There is minor redundancy between 'parameters, return type, and other details' and 'Shows query parameters, types, and metadata,' but the structure remains efficient.

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 tool with one required parameter, full schema descriptions, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers selection, invocation, and alternatives well. It could add error behavior for missing or uninstalled queries, but is_query_installed is listed as a related tool and the stated return contents mitigate the lack of an output schema.

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?

All three parameters are already fully documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The Quick Start JSON adds a concrete example value for query_name, which helps an agent form a valid call, and no parameter documentation gap exists.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Get metadata about an installed query including parameters, return type, and other details.' The related-tool note 'Use show_query to see the actual query text' further differentiates it from the sibling that returns query source, so an agent can distinguish it from show_query and run_installed_query.

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?

'Use When' enumerates concrete situations such as understanding query parameters/signature, documentation, and programmatic discovery. The tip explicitly routes users to show_query when they need the actual query text, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use list. The 'Discovering what queries are available' bullet is slightly broad since query_name is required, though the overall guidance is clear.

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