tigergraph__get_tool_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by enumerating what the tool returns (descriptions, use cases, examples, prerequisites, next steps), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not contradict annotations or hide side effects.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and uses scoped 'Use this tool when' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds functional guidance and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read-only introspection tool, the description sufficiently explains purpose, usage triggers, and return content, which is especially important because there is no output schema. It could be slightly more complete by noting how to handle an invalid/unknown tool_name, but that is a minor gap.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single tool_name parameter, including an example value. The description therefore does not need to compensate, and it adds no parameter-specific syntax or qualification beyond calling the tool 'specific.' Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific TigerGraph tool.' It clearly identifies this as an introspection/help tool for one tool, which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like discover_tools or connection tools without requiring schema inspection. The 'Use this tool when' bullets reinforce that purpose.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool (understanding capabilities, examples, prerequisites, related tools). It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to an alternative such as discover_tools for listing available tools, so it stops short of a fully explicit routing rule.

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