tigergraph__list_vector_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states it parses GSQL 'LS' command, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. The description gives moderate transparency but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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, consisting of two sentences plus a related tools line. It includes essential information about the operation, the underlying command, and optional filtering without unnecessary detail. The structure is clean and easy to read.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description provides good context by naming the returned fields (name, dimension, metric) and the filtering capability. It does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., list format, ordering, pagination) or potential errors, but for a simple listing tool, the provided context is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

All three parameters (profile, graph_name, vertex_type) have thorough descriptions in the schema, covering defaults and usage. The vertex_type parameter is explained as a filter with a clear default behavior. These descriptions add meaning beyond the schema, though they are not extremely detailed.

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's function: retrieving vector attribute information like name, dimension, and metric for vertex types. It also mentions parsing the GSQL 'LS' command and the optional filter by vertex type, which distinguishes it from other tools. The related tools list adds context without confusion.

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 implies usage by stating it lists vector attributes and can be filtered by vertex type, but it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like get_vector_index_status or provide specific when-to-use guidance. It mentions related tools but does not explain when to choose this over them, leaving some ambiguity.

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