graph_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the output format (Markdown), the content areas, and the side effect that save=True writes to a specific file path. It does not over-promise or hide the main behavioral trait, though it could have stated whether the report is read-only apart from saving.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the report contains, when to use it, and the save side effect. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a low-complexity, two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the output type, content scope, primary use case, and file-writing side effect. Additional detail on what 'hubs' or 'audit findings' mean would be nice but is not essential for a first-call overview tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains save=True behavior and references <project_root> in the output path, giving some semantic meaning. Still, it leaves project_root itself undefined and does not fully explain how the two parameters interact beyond the save effect.

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 identifies the deliverable as a concise Markdown overview of the project, listing concrete contents: stats, routes with auth, hubs, and audit findings. It also signals its role as a good first call for unfamiliar FastAPI codebases, which helps distinguish it from more specialized siblings like audit_graph or list_routes, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'Good first call to understand an unfamiliar FastAPI codebase' provides a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when to prefer other sibling tools or any exclusions, leaving the comparison to alternatives largely implicit.

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