Get a high-level summary of the indexed codebase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether an existing graph is required, or how it behaves if the graph file is missing. The description only lists return content, not side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single sentence that immediately communicates the tool's output with specific examples. It is well-structured and avoids any unnecessary words, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but the description lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., graph must already exist), output format, and explicit usage scenarios. The schema and sibling tool names provide some context, making it minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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 provides full coverage for graph_path with its description and default value, so the tool description does not need to elaborate. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is expected given 100% schema coverage.

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 returns summary statistics including file/symbol/edge counts and most-called/depended-on items. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_definition and find_callers, which focus on specific queries.

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 the tool is for high-level overview of the codebase graph, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like running index_codebase first. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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