stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It describes the output content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is output-focused rather than behavior-focused.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with key information. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or clear separation of concepts, which could improve readability for an AI agent.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the types of information returned (counts, resolution quality, breakdowns). However, it does not explain the format or structure of the output, nor does it clarify the role of the optional root parameter. This makes it partially complete but with notable gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'root' at all. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's default value. This is a significant gap for an optional parameter that likely controls the scope of the statistics.

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 states it provides a graph overview with specific counts (file/symbol/edge), resolution quality levels (exact, inferred, ambiguous, unresolved), and breakdowns by language and symbol kind. This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling tools like scope, pending, and hooks, which likely serve different purposes.

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 usage as a summary tool ('Graph overview') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (scope, pending, hooks). No when-not-to-use instructions or alternative recommendations are given.

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