graphify_sampling_status

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

The description adds detailed behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying exactly what status is reported (client support, API key configuration, and impact on graphify_label_communities). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with 'Capability test'. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing what is reported). Minimal waste.

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 simplicity (one boolean parameter, readOnly annotation, and output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its output meaning, including the relation to graphify_label_communities. It is complete for its purpose.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not explain the single parameter 'as_json'. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 reports whether the client supports host-LLM sampling, whether a backend API key is configured, and which method graphify_label_communities will pick. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on sampling/LLM status.

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 says 'Capability test' implying it's used to check sampling capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance.

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