memoryguard_codegraph_explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the source map is metadata-only (not full source) and that edges are bounded, which informs agents about output scope and limits. It does not mention side effects, but 'explain' and 'metadata-only' strongly imply a read-only operation.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and resource, then adds two precise qualifiers. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters at 0% schema documentation, the description is too terse to be fully actionable. It never explains what the returned metadata-only source map looks like, what provenance options mean, or what happens when edge_limit is reached. A tool with this complexity and no structured context needs more behavioral and parameter detail.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'one scoped CodeGraph symbol' to symbol_id and workspace, and 'bounded edges' to edge_limit, but it does not explain workspace syntax, provenance filtering, or how edge_limit interacts with the output. It adds some value over the bare schema but leaves two parameters effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Explain'), a specific resource ('one scoped CodeGraph symbol'), and two distinct qualifiers ('metadata-only source map' and 'bounded edges') that differentiate it from broader alternatives like memoryguard_explain or other codegraph traversal tools. An agent can identify what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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 a use case: explaining a single, scoped symbol in the CodeGraph with metadata only and bounded edges. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when full source is needed or when querying multiple symbols. With many sibling tools, some explicit routing would be valuable.

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