Generate code with architectural memory. Reduces hallucination via graph context. PRO — requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| branch | No | main | |
| api_key | Yes | ||
| repo_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'reduces hallucination via graph context' but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as error handling, resource consumption, state changes (e.g., file creation), or authentication failure behavior. The PRO note implies a cost but no details.
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 very short (three phrases) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the structure is a list of disconnected statements rather than a cohesive paragraph. It is not verbose, but lacks essential information that could be added without increasing length significantly.
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 (removing need to explain return values), the description does not explain the tool's overall function in a complete way. Key aspects like the meaning of 'architectural memory', expected usage patterns, or relation to other tools are absent. The description feels incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and a PRO label.
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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (repo_url, query, branch, api_key), leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond property names. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 states it 'Generate code with architectural memory', which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity about what type of code (language, purpose) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool hokmah_generate_tests, but the core purpose is adequately conveyed.
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 only mentions 'PRO — requires API key', hinting at a premium access condition but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the listed siblings (analyze, connect_mcp, connect_project, generate_tests). No contextual triggers or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing impact, connecting external MCP, connecting project, generating code, and generating tests. No two tools overlap in function, and descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'hokmah_verb_noun' with snake_case. Verbs are descriptive and imperative, and the prefix is uniform, making the naming predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers analysis, connections, and generation without being bloated or insufficient for its apparent purpose.
The tool set covers core workflows: analysis, project setup, code and test generation. Missing features like graph querying or connection management are minor gaps, but the surface is largely complete for the domain.