tigergraph__show_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not modify anything, or does not require specific permissions. Error conditions are also unaddressed. It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 efficiently organized with clear sections: a one-line purpose, bullet-point use cases, a quick start snippet, tips, and related tools. Each element serves a distinct purpose without redundant or verbose wording, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 covers the core purpose, use cases, a quick start, tips, and related tools, providing a well-rounded context for an agent. It mentions the return value (full GSQL query text) in the Tips section, but does not detail output format or potential edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptive texts (query_name, profile, graph_name). The description adds a concrete Quick Start example that demonstrates the expected JSON structure, which helps clarify parameter usage beyond the schema alone. This adds meaningful value to the schema descriptions.

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 with a specific verb and object: 'Show the GSQL text of an installed query.' The 'Use When' list further clarifies the intended scenarios, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_query_metadata or run_query.

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 provides a clear 'Use When' list that enumerates appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives, though the list of related tools partially implies this. Still, the guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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