oss_graph_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully says the query is read-only, but it does not explain permissions, query scope, error behavior, row limits beyond the schema default, or what "이름 기반 해석이라 L0" actually implies operationally.

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 short and front-loads the main operation, so it is concise. However, the fragmentary style and unexplained abbreviations like "L0" reduce clarity rather than adding useful structure.

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 query tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It establishes only that this is a read-only Cypher query, but omits the graph model, expected Cypher scope, return shape, and parameter roles needed to invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, and the description does not mention project_id, cypher, or max_rows at all. An agent gets no semantic help for required or optional parameters beyond their bare names.

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 states a specific operation: a read-only Cypher query over a structural map. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling query tools such as oss_dataflow_query or oss_lsp_* tools, and the parenthetical "codebase-memory-mcp" plus "L0" is cryptic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling graph, LSP, dataflow, or evidence tools. It also gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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