generate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes scanning, AST parsing, and cross-stack resolution, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites previous graph state or is read-only to the codebase). This leaves some ambiguity about behavioral traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage timing, and key capabilities. With only one parameter and an output schema available, it is mostly complete. A minor gap is the lack of mention of idempotency or side effects, but overall sufficient.

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%, with the parameter 'repo_path' clearly described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 scans the codebase to rebuild a structural graph using tree-sitter AST parsing. It specifies auto-detection for 20 languages and frameworks and running multiple resolvers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find', 'flow', and 'graph_view' which are for querying or visualizing the graph.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call on first use or after major refactors,' providing clear guidance on when to use. It implies that other tools are for reading the graph, setting appropriate usage boundaries.

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