同步 CodeGraph

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, which signals mutation. The description essentially restates the tool name ('sync') without adding meaningful behavioral context: it does not disclose whether the sync modifies local files, whether it is safe to rerun, how long it might take, or what happens if the index is missing or corrupt.

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 short sentence that names the command, the target, and the scope. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement beyond the core semantic info.

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 simple command-execution tool, the description provides the essential information: the command and the directory. However, it lacks context about required preconditions (except implied existing index), expected output, failure modes, and whether the operation has side effects beyond the local index. Given the minimal annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does clarify that `path` refers to the directory where the sync command executes. However, it does not explain path formatting, whether relative and absolute paths are both acceptable, or how the default '.' behaves in context.

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 states a specific operation: run `codegraph sync` in a specified directory to synchronize the existing index. The phrase '已有索引' distinguishes it from initialization-related siblings like codegraph_project_init, giving the agent a clear sense of what this tool does and when it applies.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as codegraph_project_init or codegraph_status. The only implied usage is through the word '已有', but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling tools to prefer in other situations.

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