api_graphql_fuzz

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limiting, request volume, or side effects. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's behavior beyond its function.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary sentences. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists parameters. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a fuzzing tool: no mention of request volume, potential destructive behavior, or required permissions. The description is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: url is the GraphQL endpoint URL, query is a specific query to fuzz (auto-generated if empty), and depth controls fuzzing depth (default 3). This adequately explains each parameter's purpose.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fuzz a GraphQL endpoint for vulnerabilities,' which identifies the specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from sibling api_graphql_introspect, it lacks more specific detail about the fuzzing approach.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like api_fuzz_endpoint or api_graphql_introspect. No prerequisites or usage context provided.

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