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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations by describing the facade nature, listing supported actions, and noting the cost of action=safe. It does not detail side effects or which actions are destructive, but the annotations carry that burden and there is no contradiction.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences cover scope, actions, discovery mechanism, and a cost warning with no filler. It is compact and scannable, though the dense action list makes it slightly terse.

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?

Given the high complexity (20 parameters, 14 actions, no output schema), the description is not fully self-contained. It compensates by directing the agent to action=help for exact schemas, but it still lacks per-action summaries, selection guidance, and side-effect context, so it is only minimally complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful link between action=help and target_action, but it does not explain which parameters apply to which actions or clarify the action-specific parameter combinations.

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 identifies the tool as a code-intelligence 'safety and change-management facade' and enumerates 14 concrete actions, which separates it from the read-oriented sibling tools. It does not reach 5 because the action names are cryptic and their individual purposes are not explained.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to pass action=help with target_action to get the exact action schema, and warns that action=safe is slow. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus siblings or how to choose among the listed actions, so the guidance is useful but incomplete.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds a performance cost warning (project is slow, file is warm) and the help-introspection mechanism. It does not detail response shapes, but with annotations present the added behavioral context is sufficient.

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 and front-loads the action list, then the help mechanism, then the cost caveat. The action enumeration is long but earns its place for a facade with many subcommands; slight redundancy with the enum prevents a 5.

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 multi-action facade with no output schema, the description supplies a bootstrap mechanism (help + target_action) to obtain exact action schemas and warns about the expensive action. It does not spell out every action's meaning or return format, but the help mechanism and complete parameter schema make it reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining the target_action parameter in conjunction with action=help and by highlighting project versus file cost behavior. This goes beyond the generic property descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a code-intelligence/analysis facade and enumerates its concrete actions, so an agent can see it is a read-only analysis dispatcher rather than a search or edit operation. It stops short of explicitly contrasting these actions with sibling tools like search or project, but the action list provides enough differentiation.

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?

It gives actionable usage guidance: use action=help with target_action to get an exact schema, and prefer action=file over slow action=project. It does not explicitly state when to use this facade versus siblings, so it misses the 'alternatives' part of a 5.

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

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

With all four annotations false, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses the help/discovery behavior and implies mixed read/write operations via verbs like build/cache/sync versus status/schema. However, it does not state which actions mutate state, what side effects build or cache have, or any prerequisites. It does not contradict the annotations, but disclosure is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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, front-loaded with the resource identity before the action list and help pointer. The action list partially duplicates the schema's action enum, but it serves as a useful at-a-glance summary. No wasted words or filler.

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 12-parameter, 9-action dispatcher with no output schema and uninformative annotations, the description is thin: it never maps parameters to actions or describes side-effect profiles per action. The action=help discovery mechanism is a genuine mitigation that gives the agent a path to exact action schemas, which justifies an average rather than low score.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds modest value by wiring action=help together with target_action as the discovery combination, though the schema's target_action field already says 'Business action to describe when action is help.' No other parameter semantics are added beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource domain ('code-intelligence index lifecycle hub') with a 'codegraph-compatible' qualifier that anchors it apart from siblings like search or viz. The action menu (auto/build/cache/full/knowledge/schema/status/sync) makes the dispatch verbs explicit. It misses a 5 because the actions are bare names with no definitions, leaving what each capability actually does opaque.

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 one practical usage hint: 'Pass action=help with target_action for an exact action schema,' telling the agent how to discover per-action parameters. It never states when to select this tool over siblings such as search, nav, or health, nor gives exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied by the 'index lifecycle' framing rather than explicitly stated.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by surfacing a concrete performance trait (action=callers is slow, context is warm/1-hop) and explaining the help discovery mechanism. This is useful behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's identity, followed by a useful action list, help hint, and cost warning. The action enumeration is long but necessary for a 16-action facade; it slightly duplicates the schema enum but remains scannable.

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 facade with 16 actions and no output schema, the description cannot fully document every action, but it provides the complete action list and an explicit path to obtain exact schemas via action=help. It also flags the one expensive action, which is important for correct invocation. Per-action semantics and sibling differentiation are still gaps, but the help mechanism mitigates much of the missing detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 because every parameter already has a description. The description mostly restates the action enum and the action=help + target_action behavior already present in the schema; only the cost note for callers adds marginal parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies this as a code-intelligence navigation facade and lists the 16 supported actions, so an agent can see the resource and domain at a glance. However, it does not state a single crisp outcome or explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search, structure, or viz, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use for code-graph navigation and gives an internal cost preference (prefer context over slow callers), which is useful. But it never explains when to choose nav over sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions or when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety profile, so the description carries the burden. It lists actions and a help mechanism, but discloses no side effects, mutability, output shape, permissions, or per-action behavior for a multi-action tool.

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 crisp sentences, front-loaded with the hub role and an actionable discovery instruction; no filler. The action list is dense but necessary given the tool's design.

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 high-complexity 10-action tool with no output schema, the description relies on the action=help escape hatch rather than documenting behaviors. This makes it minimally usable but incomplete for selecting the right action without an extra help call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the hint that target_action is used with action=help, which the schema already states; it adds no extra meaning to the 11 parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a 'project-intelligence hub' and enumerates ten action names, but it never states a concrete verb+resource or what the tool actually accomplishes. It is distinguishable from siblings only by the action names, not by an explicit statement of purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to invoke this hub versus sibling tools like search, edit, or index. The only directive, 'Pass action=help with target_action', explains schema discovery, not usage conditions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds some interaction context, such as the help mechanism and the facade-style action routing, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like result shapes, subscription side effects, or permission requirements. No contradiction exists.

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 dense sentences. The first front-loads the tool's identity and available actions; the second gives the essential discovery path for exact action schemas. No filler, repetition beyond the action list, or unnecessary background is present.

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?

This is a high-complexity facade with 12 parameters, 11 actions, and no output schema. The description would normally be too thin, but the explicit instruction to call action=help with target_action for exact action schemas meaningfully compensates by giving the agent a reliable discovery path. Still, it does not summarize return values or per-action parameter requirements, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains all 12 parameters and their enums. The description adds one useful parameter-related instruction—combining action=help with target_action—but this is largely a restatement of the schema's target_action description. It does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as a code-intelligence/codegraph-compatible search facade and lists the specific actions it supports. It is not a tautology and gives enough resource and operation context to distinguish it from navigation, edit, and project tools, though it does not explain what each action does.

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 actionable discovery guidance: passing action=help with target_action returns the exact action schema. However, it does not state when to use this search facade versus sibling tools like nav, structure, viz, or edit, nor does it give exclusions or preference rules. Usage context is mostly implied through the action list.

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

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

No annotations; description adds context about security boundaries and being the first step, but does not detail side effects, idempotency, or error handling.

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 concise sentences front-loading purpose and usage. No unnecessary words.

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?

Adequate for a simple setter tool: explains why it's needed (security, file resolution) and gives usage instruction. Lacks return value info but acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% with 'Absolute path to the project root'. Description repeats this without adding new constraints, format, or examples.

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?

Description clearly states 'Set the project root path for security boundaries' and identifies it as the first step, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are likely not initialization tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before any other tool', providing clear when-to-use guidance, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'codegraph-compatible' context and the help mechanism for obtaining action schemas, which gives some behavioral guidance beyond annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose, listing the actions compactly. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is appropriately sized for a facade tool, though the 'codegraph-compatible' jargon may be slightly opaque.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 10 actions), the description is not fully self-contained but offers a clear path to completeness via the help action. It does not describe return values, but with no output schema and the help mechanism, it provides an adequate entry point for an agent to discover details.

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 100% description coverage for all 12 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the specific instruction that action=help with target_action returns an exact action schema, which adds meaning to those parameters, but it does not elaborate on other parameters beyond the schema, keeping it at the 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 identifies the tool as a 'structural analysis facade' for code intelligence and lists the supported actions (analyze, ast_path, class_detail, etc.), giving a clear sense of its purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the codegraph-compatible facade framing, but it does not explain what 'structural analysis' entails beyond the action names, so it is not fully specific.

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 offers no comparison with sibling tools (search, nav, health, edit, etc.) or guidance on when to choose this facade over alternatives. The only usage hint is 'Pass action=help with target_action for an exact action schema,' which tells how to discover details but not when to use the tool contextually.

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

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

Annotations already label the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a facade and that help can be requested per action, which is useful, but it discloses little else about behavior such as output structure or action-specific effects.

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 sentences with no filler: the first establishes domain and actions, the second points to self-discovery. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 has 15 parameters, 5 actions, and no output schema, yet the description leaves the semantics of each action undefined. The help pointer is useful but shifts the burden onto a preliminary help call; for such a high-complexity tool, more context about action behavior and result types is needed.

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 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds only the cross-parameter hint that target_action is used when action is help, which the schema already states. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 identifies the tool as a 'code-intelligence ... visualization and similarity facade' and enumerates its actions: graph, knowledge, similarity, uml. It is specific enough to convey that this is a dispatcher for code analysis, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search or structure beyond the facade framing.

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 only usage guidance is 'Pass action=help with target_action for an exact action schema,' which is a discovery instruction rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditional context, exclusions, or sibling routing is provided.

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