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. It mentions reloading data from disk, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is safe, idempotent, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and context without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, side effects) and doesn't fully guide usage relative to siblings, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds context about the action ('reload graph data from disk after a regeneration'), which provides semantic meaning beyond the schema, though minimal due to no parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 action ('reload') and resource ('graph data') with context ('from disk after a regeneration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'generate' or 'graph_view', which might involve related graph operations, so it misses the highest score.

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 implies usage after a regeneration ('after a regeneration'), providing some context, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate' or 'graph_view', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves gaps in guidance for the agent.

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