superops_custom_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or that this is intended strictly as a read-only operation. It also lacks information about error handling or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient awareness of risks.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the primary action ('Run a custom GraphQL query') and add the context of advanced use cases. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the response looks like, how errors are handled, or any limitations of the custom query. For a flexible and potentially powerful tool, this level of context is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' as a GraphQL query string and 'variables' as variables to pass), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 runs a custom GraphQL query against the SuperOps.ai API, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from standard tools by noting it covers advanced use cases, and from the sibling mutation tool by being a 'query' rather than a mutation.

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 phrase 'For advanced use cases not covered by standard tools' gives general context for when to use the tool, implying it should be used only when standard tools are insufficient. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as preferring standard tools for common operations or using the custom mutation tool for writes.

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