mcp-repo-graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions grouping by architectural tier and directional analysis, but doesn't cover critical aspects like: whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid nodes. The description provides some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that packs substantial information: purpose, directional options, and result grouping. Every element earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by starting with the core action. No redundant or wasted words are present.

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's moderate complexity (dependency analysis with 3 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should better explain parameter usage and behavioral constraints. It covers the basic purpose but lacks sufficient guidance for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'node', 'direction' (downstream/upstream), and implies depth through 'fan out', but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid node format, what architectural tiers exist, how depth affects results, or the meaning of default values. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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: analyzing dependencies and effects of a node with directional options (downstream/upstream) and grouping by architectural tier. It uses specific verbs ('fan out', 'see what it affects', 'depends on') and identifies the resource ('node'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'neighbours' or 'trace', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'neighbours', 'trace', or 'graph_view' from the sibling list. It mentions directional analysis but doesn't specify scenarios where upstream vs downstream analysis is appropriate or when depth adjustments matter. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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