get_corpus_graph

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the graph's analytical outputs (hubs, dependencies, orphans), but it does not disclose performance characteristics, how max_files affects results, or any workspace-scoping behavior.

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 short sentences are front-loaded with the core action and then list the detected graph features. Every clause contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, with no filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists and relieves the description of explaining return values, the definition remains incomplete for a tool with two undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage. It also omits usage context and any caveats about sub_dir scoping or max_files limits, leaving meaningful gaps 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden for sub_dir and max_files. It never mentions either parameter, their defaults, or how they shape the graph, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it constructs an architectural dependency and reference topology graph of the workspace. It further names the exact outputs detected: central hubs by in-degree, file dependencies, and orphan files. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search, read, and indexing tools.

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 explains what the tool produces but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as search_symbols, find_symbol_references, or get_index_status. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions for an agent to follow.

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