codebase_graph_build

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

The description indicates the tool runs asynchronously and requires polling, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations (none provided). However, it does not disclose whether building is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing graph), any authentication or permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling behaviors.

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 with three sentences, each adding value: the first states purpose and method, the second adds detail on what is mapped, and the third provides the usage pattern. No wasted words.

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 complexity of building a dependency graph and the absence of an output schema, the description leaves out important details: what the return value is (e.g., success message or job ID), prerequisites (e.g., projectPath must exist), and any limitations or error conditions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., projectPath absolute path, extraExtensions env var note).

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: building a dependency graph using static analysis (ast-grep) and mapping import/require/export relationships. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codebase_graph_status (polling) and codebase_graph_query (querying) by focusing on the build action.

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 provides key usage context: it runs in the background and directs the user to call codebase_graph_status for progress polling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like codebase_graph_visualize or codebase_graph_remove.

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