jambavan_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the inferred action behavior and ambiguous-edge exclusion, but does not mention mutability, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a read-navigation tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with every sentence adding essential information: purpose, prerequisite, action breakdown, inference rule, and edge behavior. Front-loaded with core function, no redundant text.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the three actions and their general effects, but lacks detail on return format, pagination, or error conditions. It meets minimal completeness but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining how the action parameter is inferred from arguments and by linking parameters to specific actions (e.g., budget for query, max_nodes for report). This synergy improves understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 navigates a code graph built from the current index, specifying three distinct actions (report, query, path) with concrete outcomes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like jambavan_index (which builds the index) and jambavan_context.

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 instructs to call jambavan_index first, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparisons to alternative sibling tools, which would strengthen usage clarity.

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