Get a health summary of the current knowledge graph state, optionally targeting a specific repository path to assess its condition.
Return a health summary of the current graph state.
repo_path: optional absolute path to the target repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the health summary includes, or any potential side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with no 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 two sentences: purpose first, then parameter explanation. No redundant information, well-structured and efficient.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks details on the return format or any behavioral context, making it minimally adequate.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by specifying that repo_path is an optional absolute path. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints, only restating what is already in the schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns a health summary of the graph state, which is a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like dependency_graph or subgraph that also analyze graph state.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, leaving the AI agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.