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 discloses some behavioral traits: it accepts both exact and fuzzy inputs and shows tier transitions. However, it lacks critical details such as performance characteristics (e.g., computational complexity), error handling for invalid nodes, or output format specifics. For a pathfinding tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input details and output behavior, all in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies input flexibility, and the third describes additional output features. There is no wasted text.

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 (pathfinding with tier transitions), no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, input semantics, and a key output feature. However, it could benefit from mentioning limitations or dependencies, but the output schema likely handles return values, making this adequate.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that parameters accept 'exact IDs or fuzzy name matches,' clarifying the nature of 'from_node' and 'to_node' inputs. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail constraints like string formats or match algorithms.

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 with specific verbs and resources: 'Shortest path between two nodes' indicates it calculates optimal routes in a graph structure. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it shows 'tier transitions along the path,' which suggests hierarchical or categorical movement information not implied by other tool names like 'neighbours' or 'graph_view.'

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 by mentioning 'exact IDs or fuzzy name matches,' suggesting when to use based on input type. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'neighbours' or 'graph_view,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but incomplete.

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