tigergraph__list_vector_attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it parses the GSQL 'LS' command, a useful implementation detail. However, it does not describe return structure or any other behavioral nuances, so it adds only marginal value beyond annotations.

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 two sentences plus a related-tools line, with the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary wording. The related-tools line is brief and useful for navigation, though it is not strictly part of the tool's behavior.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (vector attribute name, dimension, metric) and the optional filtering. The schema covers parameter defaults. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention error conditions or graph requirements.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'Optionally filter by vertex type' only reiterates the vertex_type schema description and adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('vector attribute information'), and the fields returned (name, dimension, metric). It also mentions it parses the GSQL 'LS' command, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_vector_attribute and get_vector_index_status. The purpose is unambiguous and easily differentiated from related 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 lists related tools (add_vector_attribute, drop_vector_attribute, get_vector_index_status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus those alternatives. The context implies this is for inspection only, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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