repo_build_knowledge_graph

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the high-level behavior and scope (files/functions/classes/dependencies) but does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, or return behavior. The verb 'Construct' is ambiguous about whether the graph is stored or merely returned.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the graph is exposed. It does not, so an agent cannot tell if the result is a graph object, a stored index, or something queryable later. The omission is significant for a tool meant to feed later queries.

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 single parameter path is already fully described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the repository root directory.' The description adds no additional semantic detail, so it gets the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Construct' and identifies the resource: a structural knowledge graph covering files, functions, classes, and dependencies. This differentiates it from siblings like repo_query_knowledge_graph, which implies querying rather than building.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over similar repo_* siblings (e.g., repo_index_repository, repo_analyze_repository). The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Construct', so an agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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