jambavan_graph_report

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 key behavioral traits: edges are 'structural contains plus capped inferred symbol-name mentions' and that higher symbol_limit 'may still omit very common inferred mention names.' This provides useful insight beyond the schema.

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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output. The second provides prerequisites and additional behavior. No extraneous information—every sentence serves a purpose.

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 description explains what is returned ('hub nodes plus edge confidence notes') but lacks detail on the output structure. Given there is no output schema, more explicit information about the format would be beneficial. It also mentions edge types but stops short of full completeness.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little over the schema: it repeats the default for symbol_limit and does not enhance max_nodes beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already explains parameters sufficiently.

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's purpose: 'Build a lightweight knowledge graph from the current code index and return hub nodes plus edge confidence notes.' It uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('lightweight knowledge graph'), and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings like jambavan_graph_path and jambavan_graph_query.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call jambavan_index first' as a prerequisite. It also provides guidance on the default symbol_limit and the cost/omission trade-off for higher values. While it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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