query_local_graph

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

The description states it's offline and uses local files (0 API), indicating no network calls. However, it does not confirm read-only behavior, permissions needed, or what the 'audit graph files' entail. Without annotations, the description carries full burden and is minimal.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is relevant and no repetition. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure, like separating the overall purpose from parameter details.

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 description does not explain return values or output format, which is a gap since there is no output schema. It also does not clarify what 'audit graph files' are or how they are generated, leaving important context missing for an offline 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description lists possible values for action (uses|used_by|page|impact), but this is already in the schema description. It adds marginal value beyond what structured fields provide.

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 it provides offline dependency/impact answers from audit graph files, listing specific actions (uses, used_by, page, impact). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_server_code or sn_query which are online. However, the term 'audit graph files' is somewhat vague and could be more precise.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus other tools, such as when offline analysis is preferred over online queries. The description does not mention prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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