mcp-repo-graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('scan and rebuild'), scope ('codebase'), and auto-detection capabilities, but lacks details about computational cost, time requirements, side effects, or error conditions that would be important for a graph generation tool.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, while the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language or 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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only one optional parameter, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details about the generation process itself.

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 description doesn't mention the single parameter 'repo_path' at all, but with only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining what the tool does overall. The baseline would be lower if there were multiple undocumented parameters, but with just one optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context for tool selection.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('scan', 'rebuild') and resource ('structural graph'), and mentions auto-detection capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'graph_view' or 'reload', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('on first use, after major refactors, or when graph data feels stale'), which is helpful guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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