Compact Graph

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

The description lists what operations occur but doesn't disclose side effects like database locking, runtime duration, or whether the pruning is irreversible. Annotations already indicate a write operation; the description adds the specific maintenance behaviors but leaves out consequences.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the three maintenance actions with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb 'Rebuild'.

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?

The description covers the core operations but lacks any explanation of return values, the scope of the optional project parameter, or prerequisites. For a simple maintenance tool this is adequate but not complete, especially given no output schema.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description names three explicit actions: rebuilding database indexes, pruning orphaned edges, and reclaiming unused SQLite disk storage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like backup, restore, or audit operations.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention typical triggers like database bloat or distinguish itself from similar cleanup tools such as auto_prune_stale_tasks.

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