tigergraph__list_graphs

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly indicates the tool is a read-only listing operation that returns only graph names, implying no side effects. It could be slightly more explicit about not modifying state, but the language is sufficient.

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-structured with clear sections and no fluff. The Quick Start JSON example is somewhat redundant given the trivial input schema, but it does not significantly detract from clarity.

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 tool is simple, and the description adequately explains what it returns and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the statement 'Returns only graph names' sets expectations. Including an example output format would slightly improve completeness.

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 only parameter, profile, is fully described in the schema with guidance to omit it for the active default profile and to use list_connections to see available profiles. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no necessary parameter information beyond what is already present.

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 lists all graph names in the TigerGraph database and explicitly scopes the output to only graph names, excluding schema, query, or job details. It is easily distinguished from related tools like show_graph_details and get_graph_schema.

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 'Use When' section provides concrete scenarios: discovering existing graphs, initial connection setup, and verifying graph creation/deletion. The 'Next Steps' and 'Related Tools' sections explicitly point to alternatives for deeper details, giving 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.