Inspect AxonHub GraphQL schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' suggests a read-only operation, and the purpose adds useful context. But it does not describe the returned structure, what happens if typeName is omitted, or any other behavioral details. The read-only interpretation is reasonable but not fully transparent.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it may be slightly too terse given the missing parameter and behavior details.

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?

The tool is simple with only one optional parameter, so the description is not grossly incomplete. Still, it lacks mention of the default behavior and return format, which would help an agent use the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema makes these gaps more noticeable.

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% and the description does not mention the typeName parameter, its default value ('Query'), or how to specify a type. The description vaguely implies a type is selected, but it fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('one GraphQL type') and explains the purpose ('so an AI client can adapt to the installed AxonHub version'). It is distinguishable from siblings like axonhub_list_projects or axonhub_graphql_query, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies appropriate use: inspect a type before interacting to adapt to the installed version. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, such as axonhub_graphql_query, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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