Graph

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must disclose behavior. It lists actions like 'build' and 'update' but does not explain side effects, permissions, or whether certain actions are destructive. The behavioral impact of operations like 'full_rebuild' is not clarified.

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, with a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a compact list of actions. It is front-loaded with the key action set. The reference to the 'help' tool slightly diminishes self-contained clarity, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 8 parameters, the description does not explain the return values or the overall graph management context. It lacks details on how actions work, what the graph represents, and how parameters like 'base' or 'roots' affect behavior. Significant gaps remain.

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 attempts to add meaning by mapping actions to relevant parameters (e.g., 'build (full_rebuild, base, repo_root)'). However, it omits several parameters (e.g., 'roots') and does not explain parameter semantics or default values. The mapping is incomplete.

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 as 'Build and manage the code knowledge graph,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It lists actions that align with this purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query' or 'review,' though the difference is implied.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions using the 'help' tool for full documentation, indicating the description is insufficient for usage decisions. No exclusions or context about tool selection are given.

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