codegraph_explore

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the output format (line-numbered source grouped by file) but does not provide additional behavioral details such as limitations or edge cases. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise. 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?

For a read-only exploration tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic sense of purpose and output format but lacks clarity on how it differs from sibling tools like search or node. The maxFiles parameter is not explained, and the relationship to other codegraph tools is only implied. This is adequate but has gaps.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, which is below the 80% threshold, so the description should compensate for the undocumented maxFiles parameter, but it does not. The projectPath description in the schema is detailed, but the tool description adds no parameter semantics.

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 tool explores related symbols and line-numbered source grouped by file, which is a specific verb and resource. It also indicates its role as a first tool for broad code questions, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like codegraph_search or codegraph_node.

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?

It explicitly says it is the best first tool for architecture, flows, and broad code questions, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, so it is a 4.

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