codebase_graph_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool runs asynchronously (background) and uses static analysis, but it omits other behavioral details like idempotency, side effects (e.g., file creation), or resource usage. A score of 3 indicates adequate but incomplete disclosure.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: the first defines the action, the second explains the asynchronous behavior and polling mechanism. No redundant text.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the initial return value (likely a task ID). While the instructions to poll are clear, the absence of return format details creates a minor gap. Given the tool's complexity (background build), it is partially complete.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema: for extraExtensions, it clarifies that non-standard extensions become leaf nodes and mentions the global env var override. For projectPath, the schema already describes it adequately.

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 builds a dependency graph using static analysis (ast-grep), mapping import/require/export relationships. This is a specific verb+resource+method, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like codebase_graph_status or codebase_graph_query.

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 explicitly states the tool runs in the background and instructs users to call codebase_graph_status to poll progress. This guides the agent on workflow, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicit alternatives.

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