code_insight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions bridging GitNexus, modes, and auto-degradation, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the bridge fails. More behavioral context is needed.

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 (one Chinese sentence) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be better structured with separate sentences for usage and fallback behavior. Still, it efficiently communicates key points.

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 high parameter count (10) and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks detail on return values, mode-specific behavior, and limitations. It covers overall intent but not enough to fully guide an agent without additional hints.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it generalizes the tool's behavior but does not elaborate on individual parameters. For example, 'direction' and 'max_depth' are only briefly described in schema.

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 the tool's purpose: analyzing call chains, context, and impact based on code graphs. It mentions specific modes (query/context/impact) and fallback behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_feature or code_review, which are for code generation or review.

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 indicates when to use ('当用户需要...时使用') and describes fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives among siblings.

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