refresh

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds behavioral details: incremental re-parsing by default, cheap after edits, full=true for clean reparse, and support for local path or git URL with on-demand cloning. No contradictions.

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 (under 100 words), front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose, and each sentence adds value. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (graph rebuilding, 20 languages, multiple resolvers) and that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers core behavior, parameters, and usage context. Could be more detailed about output, but output schema fills that gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description rephrases schema info for both parameters (full and repo_path) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 rebuilds a structural graph using tree-sitter AST parsing across 20 languages and runs cross-stack resolvers. It distinguishes from siblings like find and trace by focusing on graph regeneration after major refactors.

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 explicitly advises calling after a major refactor and notes that routine edits are handled automatically by the file watcher. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative sibling tools, but provides clear usage context.

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