codegraph_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: authentication ('PUBLIC — local DB read'), risk ('READ — read-only'), and return size ('~1KB'). This goes beyond the schema and provides essential transparency.

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 structured with tags and sections, each adding value. It is concise given the information packed, though the format is slightly verbose with multiple lines. Still well-organized.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and its usage context. It provides all necessary information for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add. The description explicitly states 'No parameters', which is clear. Baseline score for no params is 4.

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 checks the status of the code knowledge graph and lists the exact information it returns (node count, edge count, covered files, most called functions). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'codegraph_query' by mentioning the use case sequence.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Agent first connection to confirm graph readiness'. It also implies a sequence with 'codegraph_query'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context makes it clear.

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