graph_cross_project

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Search' is consistent with read-only. The description adds the behavioral trait of grouping results by project, which annotations don't cover. However, no additional context is provided about result format, ordering, or potential limitations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key behavior without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 search tool with two parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description adequately covers scope and grouping. It could mention whether the search spans archived projects or if results are paginated beyond the 'limit' parameter, but overall it's sufficient.

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% (both 'query' and 'limit' have descriptions). The description adds the grouping context but no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb ('Search'), the resource ('all projects'), and the distinguishing behavior ('group results by project'). It implicitly differentiates from the 'search' sibling by the cross-project scope, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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 phrase 'across all projects' implies a use case (when cross-project scope is needed), but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool vs the sibling 'search' or 'graph_related'. The guideline is implied rather than stated.

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