Query

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by presenting read-like actions (query, search, impact, diff). The description adds behavioral detail per action (e.g., 'spot_check returns random callsite snippets'), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 information-dense, packing multiple actions and their arguments into a single paragraph without excessive verbosity. It is not structured with sections but remains focused. The mention of 'help' for full docs prevents over-expansion.

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 21 parameters and high complexity, the description provides a high-level overview of actions but lacks depth on many parameters. An output schema exists, which helps, but the description still leaves gaps regarding parameter usage and edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It maps some parameters to actions (e.g., pattern, target for query), but many parameters (kind, repo, as_of, limit, languages, etc.) remain unexplained, limiting practical guidance.

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 queries a 'code knowledge graph' and lists specific actions like query, search, impact, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings like config or help by detailing unique functionalities, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'graph' tool.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but does not specify when to use a particular action or when not to use the tool. The only direction is 'Use help tool for full docs,' which defers responsibility.

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