codebase_graph_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose prerequisites (e.g., graph must be built via codebase_graph_build), side effects, or performance implications. Only the output is described, leaving critical behavioral context missing.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function and outputs without extraneous 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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately lists the statistics returned but omits important context such as the need for a pre-built dependency graph, which impacts completeness.

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 for the single parameter (projectPath) is 100%, with a clear description in the schema. The description adds no further parameter information, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies 'Get statistics about the code dependency graph' and enumerates the outputs (total files, edges, most connected files, orphan files, circular dependencies), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like codebase_graph_build and codebase_graph_circular.

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 usage for retrieving overall graph statistics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like codebase_graph_query or codebase_graph_circular. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite mentions.

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