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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool outputs a 'Visual ASCII graph map' and describes some features, but it doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format entails beyond ASCII, or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise with three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and default behavior. It front-loads the main function ('Visual ASCII graph map') and adds specific details without unnecessary elaboration, though the phrasing could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the tool has an output schema (which likely describes return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and complexity in graph visualization, the description is incomplete—it lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, making it only minimally adequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'feature', 'node', and implies 'depth' through context like 'tree of children', but doesn't explain what values these parameters accept, their formats, or how they interact. For example, it doesn't specify what 'feature' or 'node' strings represent, leaving parameters largely undocumented and reducing usability.

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 creates a 'Visual ASCII graph map' with specific features like 'layered flow diagram' and 'tree of children, connections, and flows', which distinguishes it from generic visualization tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flow', 'trace', or 'neighbours' that might also involve graph-like operations, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 implied usage by stating 'Without args: full graph overview with node/edge type counts', suggesting this tool can be used for high-level summaries when no parameters are provided. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flow' or 'trace', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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