miniapp_graph_stats

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'output,' suggesting a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state it has no side effects, permission requirements, or other behavioral traits. This leaves room for ambiguity.

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 main action and output. It is efficient but lacks any additional context that might be helpful.

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 description lists output content types but omits details about return format, use cases, or when to invoke the tool. Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 50% (only 'limit' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, so it adds no value beyond what the schema already provides. The undocumented 'projectPath' parameter is not clarified.

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 outputs statistics of a lightweight code graph, listing specific content types (node/edge types, route links, important nodes, risk tips). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like miniapp_dependency_diagram, the focus on statistical summary distinguishes it implicitly.

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 implies usage when a statistical summary of the code graph is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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