codegraph_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The word 'Report' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, does not require authentication, or has any other behavioral constraints. For a read-only tool, this is a minimal but insufficient disclosure.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and it achieves front-loading of the core function. 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the purpose but not the expected output format or example values. Without an output schema, a brief note on what the report contains (e.g., 'Returns health status: green/yellow/red') would improve completeness. As is, it is minimally adequate.

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%, with the parameter 'projectPath' already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but the baseline score is 3 when schema coverage is high. The description does not compensate for any gaps, nor is it necessary.

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's function: 'Report CodeGraph index health and pending synchronization state.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the resource ('CodeGraph index health and pending synchronization state'). With no sibling tools listed, differentiation is not required, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. There are no sibling tools to reference, but even a brief note on typical scenarios (e.g., 'Use to check if indexing is complete') would improve this dimension.

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