tigergraph__gsql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions executing GSQL commands and gives examples of administrative/schema operations, but it does not warn about potential side effects, destructiveness, permission requirements, or that GSQL commands can have broad impact. The description could be more transparent about the need for caution.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, usage boundaries, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It explains the tool's scope, gives examples, and points to the correct alternative for data queries. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but since there is no output schema, this is not required. Minor gap: it does not clarify that commands other than the given examples (e.g., DDL for loading jobs) are also valid, but the 'e.g.,' implies openness.

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 already covers all three parameters with meaningful descriptions (command, profile, graph_name). The tool description adds extra value by providing example command values, which helps the agent understand what to pass. The profile and graph_name descriptions are complete in the schema, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 specific action ('Execute a GSQL command'), the resource (TigerGraph), and the intended use cases (administrative tasks, schema modifications). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from run_query, which is helpful given the many sibling tools.

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 instructs when to use the tool (administrative tasks, schema changes) and when not to (data queries, directing to run_query). Concrete examples ('CREATE USER', 'LS') further clarify the expected input, leaving little ambiguity about the tool's role compared to siblings.

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