Graph

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description includes 'ingest (build graph)', which suggests a write operation. This contradiction undermines transparency. The description adds some behavioral context (e.g., action names) but fails to resolve the inconsistency with 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 concise (single line) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the list of actions is run-on; using bullet points or better separation would improve structure. Still efficient with no wasted 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 (11 actions, 13 parameters, no output schema), the description is too terse. It does not explain when to use each action, what the return values look like, or how parameters interact. The schema fills many gaps, but the description leaves the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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 detailed descriptions for all 13 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing glosses for actions (e.g., 'module deps'), which helps interpret the 'action' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is for 'Code graph analysis' and lists 11 distinct actions, each with a brief gloss (e.g., 'dependencies (module deps)'). This makes the purpose specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'entity'.

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 enumerates the available actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it. The list implies usage contexts, but explicit when-when-not instructions are absent.

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