ariadne

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. It describes the tool's function (querying chains) and output (candidate clusters), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It mentions the data source ('local Ariadne DB'), which adds some context, but doesn't cover behavioral traits like response format or limitations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the return value, and the third provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the tool's complexity (querying cross-service chains) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output type, but could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., response structure, error cases). However, it provides enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use it effectively.

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 both parameters (hint and top_n). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'business term or endpoint name' for the hint parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('query', 'returns') and resources ('cross-service chains', 'candidate clusters of related GraphQL operations, HTTP endpoints, Kafka topics, and frontend queries'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying it's for understanding business features across services, unlike generic help or node expansion 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need to understand which APIs, topics, or frontend operations are involved in a business feature.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like ariadne_help (general help) or expand_node (likely for specific node details).

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