codebase_graph_build

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

With no annotations, the description shoulders full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool runs asynchronously ('Runs in the background') and directs the user to a polling mechanism. This is critical behavioral info. It does not mention resource usage, error behavior, or prerequisites, but the async nature is a key transparency point.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the crucial async behavior and guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary concerns: what the tool does, that it's async, and how to monitor completion. It omits error cases, time estimates, and prerequisites, but for a straightforward build action, this is sufficient. The mention of a companion status tool adds important context.

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%: both parameters (projectPath, extraExtensions) are described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade understanding but also doesn't enhance it.

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 verb ('Build'), resource ('dependency graph'), and method ('static analysis (ast-grep)'). It specifies what relationships are mapped (import/require/export) and differentiates from sibling tools like codebase_graph_query (query) and codebase_graph_status (poll). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 tells the user to call codebase_graph_status to poll progress since the build runs in the background. This provides a clear workflow step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other graph-related siblings (e.g., when to build vs. query), but the context of 'Build' vs 'Query' is implicitly clear from names.

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