graph_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaning beyond that: it discloses the kind of status information returned (counts, provenance, moved flag) and ties it to staleness checking. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

Two short sentences carry all the essential content: what the tool reports and when to call it. The wording is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers what it returns and when to use it. Since no output schema exists, the explicit enumeration of counts, provenance, and repository-moved status partially compensates, though terms like 'published generation' and 'provenance' are left somewhat underspecified.

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, so the parameter burden is minimal. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately says nothing about parameters because there are none to explain.

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 names the resource—the published generation—and specifies three concrete data categories it exposes: counts, provenance, and repository-moved status. It is clearly distinct from retrieval/indexing siblings like find_symbol or index_project, though it lacks a direct verb like 'reports' or 'returns'.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: 'Call it when an answer looks stale.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not spell out when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the sibling list makes the status-versus-search distinction apparent.

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