Extract AST-sliced repository context under a strict token budget to enable local bug repair from issue descriptions.
Extract an AST-sliced repository context bounded strictly under token budget (<=1,200 tokens) using Host-side Code Property Graph reachability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | Yes | Bug report, error traceback, or coding query | |
| budget | No | Maximum token budget (default 1200) | |
| repo_path | Yes | Absolute or relative path to repository root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 disclose two real behavioral traits: the hard token ceiling (<=1,200) and the mechanism (CPG reachability slicing) that determines what gets included. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are deterministic, how the slice is structured, or what happens if the repo path is invalid or the issue is too vague.
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?
A single sentence with the key constraint front-loaded after the verb and no filler or repetition. It is dense with unexplained internal terminology ('Host-side', 'Code Property Graph reachability'), which costs a little readability but not length.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context, and it never says what the returned 'slice' contains (file snippets? AST nodes? line ranges?) or how large the issue string may be. For a context-extraction tool whose whole value is the shape of its output, this is a meaningful gap, though the budget and mechanism disclosures partially compensate.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the budget concept ('bounded strictly under token budget') but adds no new semantics for repo_path or issue beyond what the schema states.
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?
States a concrete verb ('Extract') and a specific resource ('AST-sliced repository context') with its defining constraint (bounded under a token budget via CPG reachability). It never contrasts itself with the likely-overlapping sibling neurocode_seeds, and the phrase 'Host-side Code Property Graph reachability' is opaque jargon an agent must guess at.
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?
Usage is only implied: supplying a repo plus an issue suggests 'call this when you have a bug report or traceback and need relevant code'. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to neurocode_seeds or the other siblings, even though seeds plausibly covers a similar context-gathering step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.