GraphQL Type Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about the prerequisite ('requires schema to be introspected') that isn't captured in annotations, which is crucial for successful tool invocation. No behavioral contradictions exist.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the essential prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It covers the purpose and prerequisite, though it could optionally mention what the output looks like (e.g., field names with types) since there's no output schema. The annotations handle safety concerns well.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('List available fields') on a specific resource ('GraphQL type') using a specific method ('introspected schema'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'execute_custom_query' or 'get_available_queries' by focusing on type introspection rather than query execution or query listing.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('requires schema to be introspected'), which is essential for GraphQL operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose naturally differentiates it from most siblings.

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