CodeGraph: codegraph_files

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only adds 'Indexed' and the performance comparison. That adds some context beyond the annotations but does not disclose details such as index freshness or behavior when no .codegraph index exists near the supplied projectPath.

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 that front-loads the key value proposition and includes a performance/selection cue. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, restatement, or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple read-only file-tree operation, the description plus a fully described schema is adequate. The schema covers projectPath quirks, defaults, and filter semantics, while the description states what is returned. A small gap is the absence of any note about output shape when metadata is disabled, but this is minor.

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 each parameter including meaningful descriptions, defaults, and examples. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as an 'Indexed file tree with language + symbol counts' and distinguishes it from Glob/project-layout tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the noun phrase and title leave little ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

'Faster than Glob for project layout' gives a clear use context and positions the tool as the better choice for layout queries. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the guidance is enough for an agent to select this tool for exploring project structure.

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