codegraph_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('RISK: READ — 只读'), requires no authentication (PUBLIC), accesses a local database, and returns small payloads (~2KB). It does not mention caching or behavior for invalid input, but the risk profile is well communicated.

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 well-structured with headers, keywords, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core function. Although longer than necessary, every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy with schema description but acceptable.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, auth, risk, return size, and relation to sibling. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but the return size hint compensates somewhat. Reasonably complete for a read-only query.

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's parameter section repeats the schema's descriptions in a structured format but does not add significant new semantic meaning. It clarifies the mode enum values slightly, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions.

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 for call chains, symbol search, file listing, and impact analysis. Example scenarios are provided, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on OKX trading or general agents.

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 specifies concrete scenarios for when to use the tool, e.g., when the agent needs to answer questions like 'toResult被哪些工具调用'. It also lists keywords and a related tool (codegraph_status), though it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. The sibling set is dominated by OKX APIs, so the purpose is already clear.

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