incremental_update_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mechanism (comparing file hashes, updating only affected nodes) and the performance benefit, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether changes are permanent), prerequisites (e.g., whether an initial extraction is required), or error behavior. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, each adding value. The first states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third provides a key benefit. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 gives a solid overview of the tool's core behavior and advantage, but it is incomplete given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing persisted call graph), what happens if no changes are detected, or how the tool integrates with extraction tools. For a moderately complex incremental update operation, this level of detail is only minimally viable.

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 schema has 3 parameters (pattern, projectId, workingDirectory) with 0% coverage, meaning no descriptions are provided in the schema. The main description also does not explain any of these parameters, their roles, or how they relate to the tool's functionality. This is a significant gap, as the agent has no guidance on what values to provide or how they affect the incremental update.

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 function: 'Detect file changes and update the persisted call graph incrementally.' It specifies a specific verb ('update'), a specific resource ('persisted call graph'), and distinguishes itself from full re-extraction, which is a sibling tool ('extract_call_graph').

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 implies when to use the tool by contrasting it with full re-extraction ('Much faster than full re-extraction'), suggesting it is the preferred choice for updating an existing graph when file changes occur. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tool, though the sibling list includes extract_call_graph.

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