CodeGraph: codegraph_explore

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the call is capped, returns verbatim source grouped by file, includes a call path, and is semantically equivalent to Read so files should not be re-read. This significantly shapes how an agent should consume 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?

The description is front-loaded with the most important usage directive, followed by concrete output details and query flexibility. Every sentence earns its place, and there is minimal redundancy despite the amount of guidance packed in.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly explains what will be returned, how to query it, and what follow-up action is unnecessary. The schema fills in parameter defaults and project-path nuances, so the combined definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with rich descriptions and examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool-level description mostly restates the query flexibility and capped-call behavior rather than adding new parameter-specific semantics beyond 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?

The description immediately states that this is the primary codegraph exploration tool and specifies exactly what it returns: verbatim source of relevant symbols grouped by file, plus the call path among them. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like codegraph_search or read_file because it brands itself as a Read-equivalent source-returning entry point.

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 gives a strong, actionable rule: 'call FIRST for almost any question OR before an edit', and explains that it is usually the only call needed compared to a search/Read/Grep loop. It also tells the agent not to re-open files whose source has already been returned, which is a clear behavioral instruction for follow-up actions.

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