build_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: it writes to <path>/.aspark-graph/ and is the only write-capable MCP tool. It does not specify overwrite or idempotency behavior, but for a scan-and-persist tool the main behavioral risk is clearly flagged.

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 with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the crucial mutating side effect and sibling differentiation.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides purpose, side effects, output location, and distinction from siblings. It could add explicit guidance about when to rebuild the graph, but the core operational context is sufficiently documented.

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 has no descriptions for the single `path` parameter, but the description compensates by using `path` in the output location pattern, indicating it is the repository root and determines where .aspark-graph/ is written. This gives the agent enough semantic meaning to use the parameter correctly.

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 a specific verb ('(Re)scan'), a specific resource (the repository and .spark/ artifacts), and a concrete outcome (persist the graph). It also explicitly differentiates this tool from the read-oriented siblings by stating it is the only MCP tool that writes.

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 clearly situates this tool as the write/persist operation among read-style siblings, so an agent can infer when it is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full usage-guide.

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