codetopo_snapshotExport the full code graph as a portable, audit-head-bound snapshot for reproducible review or transfer from an index database.
Export the whole graph as a portable snapshot, bound to the audit head.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db_path | Yes | Path to the index database. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('whole graph') and the audit-head binding, but does not describe output format, snapshot destination, or any resource cost. Adds some value beyond annotations, but not rich behavioral detail.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted words. The audit-head qualifier adds context without bloating the definition.
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 single-parameter, read-only export tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but leaves notable gaps: it does not explain what a 'portable snapshot' contains, where it is written, or what the audit head binding implies for the caller. With no output schema, some return/side-effect expectation would help.
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% and the single db_path parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Export) and resource (whole graph as a portable snapshot), which is clear and distinguishable from the query-oriented siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from sibling tools like codetopo_stats or codetopo_verify, so it is not a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. An agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the tool for exporting a snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.