graph_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns data, implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the session_id is invalid. The minimal description fails to provide adequate 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 extremely concise at 6 words, which is efficient but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but lacks structure for multiple ideas.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain return values. Given the low complexity (1 optional param), the description is still too incomplete to fully inform the agent about what 'graph counts' and 'dependency summary' entail, especially compared to sibling tools.

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 input schema has one parameter (`session_id`) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add any meaningful semantics beyond the schema itself. This is a critical gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('graph counts and dependency summary'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not specify which graph (e.g., current repository graph) or what exactly 'counts' and 'summary' entail, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., `subgraph`, `reachable_from`). The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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