memoryguard_codegraph_affected

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only hints at 'bounded' and 'scoped' behavior. It does not disclose whether the call is read-only, what happens for an unknown start_id, how depth/limit interact, or what the returned metadata looks like.

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 sentence with no filler, and the most important qualifiers are front-loaded. It is very concise, though its terseness contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter guidance.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. It omits relation semantics, workspace/provenance scoping, and output expectations, which are necessary for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain start_id, relation, workspace, provenance, depth, or limit. 'Bounded', 'reverse-impact', and 'scoped' give weak hints, but relation and provenance are the crucial parameters for determining what is returned, and they are left unexplained.

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 names a specific operation ('Return ... metadata') with a clear resource ('CodeGraph symbol') and adds distinguishing qualifiers: 'reverse-impact', 'bounded', and 'scoped'. This separates it from generic codegraph_query/path/explain operations by conveying the exact intent.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like memoryguard_codegraph_query or memoryguard_codegraph_path. The description only states what the tool does, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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