mcp-repo-graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool outputs rankings and counts, which gives some behavioral insight, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or destructive. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a mutation/analysis tool without structured safety hints.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first explains what the tool does, and the second states its purpose. It's front-loaded with key information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 1 parameter with low schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. However, for a tool with no annotations, it lacks behavioral details like safety or performance, making it minimally complete but with gaps in transparency.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't explicitly mention the 'file_path' parameter, but it implies file analysis by stating 'Internal structure of a file', adding context about what the parameter represents. This compensates partially, though not fully specifying format or constraints.

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 the tool analyzes a file's internal structure by ranking functions/methods by size and counting classes and injected services, with the purpose of understanding content before splitting. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and resource 'file', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'split_plan' or 'minimal_read'.

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 'before splitting' (likely referring to 'split_plan' sibling), suggesting context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit alternatives, exclusions, or detailed guidance on when not to use it versus other analysis tools like 'hotspots' or 'impact'.

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