localvibecode_build_graph

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add two genuinely useful traits: the build is deterministic and costs '0 LLM tokens'. It does not say where the graph is written, whether an existing graph is overwritten, how expensive/slow it is, or whether it must run before blast_radius — real gaps for a build/index operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the returned artifacts. Slightly jargon-dense ('Graphify', 'Architectural God Nodes') and every clause earns its place, though a non-initiated agent may not know what a 'God Node' is.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the prose carries the return-value burden — and it does list the three artifact types, which helps. But for a tool that presumably writes an index to disk, the definition omits persistence location, staleness/invalidations, and the default repo behavior, leaving the agent short of what it needs to sequence this correctly.

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% and the single parameter is optional with a self-explanatory schema description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about what happens when repo_path is omitted (current working repo? cwd?), which is the one meaningful semantic question for a 0-required-param tool.

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?

It gives a specific verb+resource ('Build/refresh the deterministic AST Code Knowledge Graph') plus a named artifact ('Graphify'), which is far more than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from the identical-looking sibling 'aisdlc_build_graph', so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no explicit 'use when' / 'do not use when' guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives (blast_radius, verify, pev_run). The only implicit signal is 'refresh', which hints that it should be run before graph-dependent tools, but the agent must infer that.

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