CodeGraph: codegraph_search

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those hints: results contain only locations, not code, and the operation is quick. This is meaningful disclosure of what the agent can expect from the response.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded ('Quick symbol search by name'), followed immediately by the output type and the routing to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place.

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 rich schema, the safety-carrying annotations, and the explicit statement of what results contain, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It tells what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use a different tool, with no output schema needed.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters with examples and the enum. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 3 applies because it adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific action ('quick symbol search by name') and resource (codegraph index), and explicitly contrasts itself with codegraph_explore by noting this tool returns locations only, not code. This clearly distinguishes it from the most similar sibling without ambiguity.

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?

The description directly tells the agent when to choose an alternative: if the goal is to get actual source code or understand an area, use codegraph_explore instead. This explicit when-not/alternative guidance is exactly what an agent needs to route correctly.

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