CodeGraph 状态

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

The description adds that this tool executes `codegraph status` and returns MCP subprocess status, which is useful behavioral context. The annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, so the read-only nature is covered. The description does not explain output format or failure behavior, but it adds some value beyond the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence with no filler. It could be restructured to include usage and parameter guidance, but as pure conciseness it is clean and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, a subtle `path` parameter, and a closely named sibling `codegraph_status`, this description is too sparse. It omits when to use the tool, what “MCP subprocess status” means, and whether `path` changes the project context. The read-only annotation helps, but does not fill the completeness gap.

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 shows a `path` string with default `"."`, but no description of what that path controls. The description never mentions `path` or how it affects the command. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 a concrete action — run `codegraph status` — and a concrete result: the MCP subprocess status. This is clear enough to identify the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling `codegraph_status`, which is likely to 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of `codegraph_status`, `codegraph_project_sync`, `integration_status`, or any other sibling. No alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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