初始化 CodeGraph

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals mutation, and the description adds the command and outcome. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing index is overwritten, whether hidden files are created, or whether re-running is safe. For a state-changing tool, this is too thin.

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 front-loads the action and then states the intended result. There is no padding, and the structure is appropriate for a tool with one optional parameter.

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 simple signature and lack of output schema reduce the burden, but the description still omits usage boundaries, side-effect expectations, and any indication of what success or failure looks like. An agent could guess the purpose, but not confidently decide between this and related codegraph project tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the `path` parameter, but it only implies the workspace-or-subdirectory context. It never explicitly ties the path parameter to the command or describes path constraints, relative versus absolute paths, or how the default '.' interacts with the parameter.

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 names the exact command (`codegraph init .`), the scope (workspace or subdirectory), and the result (local code knowledge graph index). This is a clear verb+resource statement, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like codegraph_project_sync.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as codegraph_project_sync and codegraph_project_status are not mentioned, so the agent gets no explicit help choosing between initialization and updating or checking status.

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