cos_graph_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds substantive behavior beyond them: same-module edges are dropped, and tests, build output and worktrees are excluded — clarifying the filtering semantics of the result.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then structured Args/Returns sections. Efficient overall, though the Returns line is malformed ('JSON envelope with , and module_count'), a minor structural defect.

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?

Purpose, filtering behavior, and both parameters are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. The garbled Returns field names are a small gap, but the definition gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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 carry the burden — and it does. Both params are given meaning and constraints: max_modules ('Heaviest modules kept', default 40, max 100) and min_edge_weight ('Prune edges lighter than this', default 1). The 'max 100' cap is added value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Aggregate files into module nodes with weighted cross-module edges (architecture map)'. This is a distinctive whole-repo summary operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling graph tools such as cos_graph_communities or cos_graph_centrality, whose purposes could overlap.

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 phrase 'One whole-repo shape in a single call' implies this is the high-level overview tool, giving implied usage context. But there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the many sibling graph tools, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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