CodeGraph: codegraph_status

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

The annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying the tool reports on index health metrics (files, nodes, edges) and frames it as a debugging aid, going slightly beyond annotation data without contradicting it.

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 only two short phrases, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant content. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 debug-only status tool, the description is mostly complete given the rich schema and safety annotations. The only minor gap is that without an output schema, the exact return shape of the health check is not spelled out, though 'files / nodes / edges' gives a strong hint.

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 tool description itself says nothing about the projectPath parameter, but the input schema provides a detailed, 100%-coverage description including path resolution behavior and default-project semantics. With the schema carrying the full explanatory burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is an 'Index health check' and specifies the relevant dimensions: files, nodes, edges. This is more specific than simply restating the tool name and helps distinguish it from codegraph_project_status, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

'Skip unless debugging' is explicit usage guidance that tells the agent this tool is for diagnostic use only. It does not name alternatives or state when to prefer them, but it provides clear context for when this tool should not be used.

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