mcp-repo-graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Cheap orientation', hinting at low resource cost, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with no annotations, this 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using just two phrases to convey purpose and usage. 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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, output structure) to be fully complete, though the output schema mitigates this somewhat.

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 inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 what the tool does: provides a 'repo overview' covering 'git state, feature coverage, available flows' for 'orientation'. It specifies the resource (repo) and scope (overview/orientation) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'bloat_report' or 'cost' which might serve different analytical purposes.

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 context with 'Cheap orientation', suggesting this tool is for initial, low-cost assessment. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'graph_view' for visual analysis or 'minimal_read' for focused data, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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