topos_generate_graphify_graph

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

The description enriches the annotations by explaining the side-effecting nature, the skip-if-existing behavior, and the independence from GitNexus. It aligns perfectly with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds meaningful context beyond them, such as the force flag's effect and the tool's scope.

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 compact yet information-dense: every sentence serves a purpose, from the main action, to usage guidance, to behavioral nuances, to alternative tools. It is front-loaded with the primary action and flows logically, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a side-effecting tool without an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, when to force regeneration, how it relates to other tools, and its independence from GitNexus. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already covers both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying the behavior of `force=true` in the context of skipping regeneration, which provides semantic understanding beyond the schema's simple 'Regenerate even when current.' This lifts the score above baseline.

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: generating the Graphify knowledge graph at a specific path (`graphify-out/graph.json`) via an external CLI. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `topos_generate_depgraph` by explicitly noting the difference, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use before topos_refactor(target="graphify") when no graph exists' and also gives a direct alternative: 'For GitNexus dep graphs use topos_generate_depgraph instead.' This clearly tells the agent when and when not to use the tool.

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