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 filtering and ranking by relevance, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no files match. The phrase 'returns the full feature file set' implies reading, but lacks confirmation of safety or side effects.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address functionality. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains the conditional logic for filtering. No wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure 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 handles return values) but no annotations and poor schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameter usage but lacks behavioral context and deeper parameter semantics that would help an 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It explains that 'sub_task' filters by keywords and 'feature' determines the file set, but doesn't clarify what constitutes a 'feature' or 'sub_task' in this context, leaving both parameters semantically vague beyond basic hints.

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: to return 'the smallest file set needed for a task' with filtering capabilities. It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('file set'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bloat_report' or 'hotspots' 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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, mentioning filtering by 'sub_task keywords if given' but offering no context on alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. With many sibling tools available, there's no explicit comparison to help the agent choose between them.

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