codebase_graph_status

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

Description lists returned data (build progress, node/edge count, etc.) but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. Without annotations, more direct disclosure of read-only behavior would improve transparency.

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 sentences: first enumerates specific status fields, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and concise without extraneous detail.

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 1 parameter fully described in schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the main outputs and usage context. Could mention error conditions (e.g., if graph not built) but overall sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter (projectPath) with schema description already covering absolute path. Description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it checks status of code dependency graph, listing specific details (build progress, node/edge count, last built, cache status). Explicitly references sibling tool codebase_graph_build for polling, distinguishing it from other graph 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?

Explicitly states to use for polling after codebase_graph_build. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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