tigergraph__list_graphs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by restricting the return value to graph names only and explicitly excluding schema, query, and job details, which is useful for an agent deciding whether this tool satisfies a request.

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: purpose, use cases, quick start, and next steps. Each section earns its place, and the core purpose statement is front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler or redundant explanation exists beyond useful routing information.

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 list tool with zero required parameters, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what it returns, when to use it, how to call it, and points to related tools for broader or deeper information. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states the output scope, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already documents the optional profile parameter at 100% coverage, providing a solid baseline. The description adds value by emphasizing that no parameters are needed and providing a concrete Quick Start with an empty JSON object, which reassures the agent that a zero-argument call is valid.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List all graph names in the TigerGraph database.' It further distinguishes itself by explicitly saying it returns 'only graph names — no schema, query, or job details,' which clearly separates it from siblings like get_graph_schema and show_graph_details.

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 explicit scenarios: discovering existing graphs, first step on a new instance, and verifying creation/dropping. 'Next Steps' and 'Related Tools' explicitly route the agent to show_graph_details and get_graph_schema for more detailed information, making the alternative selection clear.

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