Graphql Schema Get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it reveals almost nothing beyond the read-only implication of 'Get'. It does not state auth requirements, whether it returns the full schema or a subset, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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 three-word description is certainly front-loaded and has no padding, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Every sentence earns its place only because there is essentially only one short sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the description still leaves the agent without format semantics, usage context, or any behavioral signal for an operation with a configurable output format. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0% for the single 'format' parameter, and the description makes no attempt to compensate. The allowed values (e.g., json vs. sdl) and the effect of changing the default are completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get GraphQL schema'), so the agent knows it's a schema-fetch operation rather than the query execution of graphql_query. However, it does not distinguish itself from graphql_schema_extend or jsonapi_schema_get, and adds no scope detail beyond the title, keeping it at the minimum viable level.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the adjacent tools (graphql_query for executing, graphql_schema_extend for extending). The agent must infer context entirely from the name; there is no routing information at all.

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