codebase_graph_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks status without modifying anything, lists the types of information returned, and implies read-only behavior. This adequately informs an AI agent of the tool's non-destructive nature.

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: the first lists the status fields, the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundant or irrelevant information, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the expected return fields (build progress, counts, last built, cached). It also references the relevant sibling tool (codebase_graph_build), providing sufficient context for a status-checking tool.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'projectPath'. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema's description ('Absolute path to the project directory.'). Thus it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'code dependency graph status', listing specific attributes (build progress, node/edge count, last built, cached). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like codebase_graph_build (build) and codebase_graph_query (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 advises 'Use this to poll progress after calling codebase_graph_build', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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