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 explains what the tool calculates (ranking by size x connection count) and the output's meaning (maintenance risks, context hogs), but doesn't cover critical behaviors like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or how results are presented. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly convey the tool's core function and output interpretation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the ranked results), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and complexity in analyzing codebase hotspots, the description is incomplete—it explains the ranking logic but misses behavioral and parameter details that would help the agent use it 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 description adds no information about the 'threshold' parameter beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention parameters at all. The parameter's purpose, effect, or typical values are undocumented, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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: ranking files by size × connection count to identify maintenance risks. It specifies the verb 'ranked' and resource 'files', and explains the metric (size x connection count) and goal (identifying context hogs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bloat_report' or 'cost', which might also analyze codebase issues.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this analysis is preferred over others (e.g., 'bloat_report' for size issues or 'impact' for dependency analysis). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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