aiworkhub_manager_source_graph_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'query' weakly implies a read-only operation and 'use continuously' hints at repeatability, but there is no disclosure of cost, rate limits, cursor/pagination behavior, or side effects for an 8-parameter tool.

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 front-loaded and technically brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: two fragments for a 37-mode tool is far too little. The all-caps 'MANAGER CODE DISCOVERY' label is filler that consumes half the text without conveying capability.

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 (so return values needn't be explained), the description is grossly inadequate for the tool's complexity: 37 undocumented modes, 8 parameters with 0% coverage, and no annotations. An agent cannot reliably invoke this correctly from the given text.

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 0% across 8 parameters, and the 37-value 'mode' enum plus 'budget', 'cursor', 'target', 'bundle_type', 'workflow_stage', and 'continuation_cursor' are completely undocumented. The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema, leaving the most important selection decision (which mode) to guesswork.

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 heading 'MANAGER CODE DISCOVERY' identifies the domain and the routing sentence implies a source-graph based code lookup, but the description never states the actual verb+resource ('query the source graph'). With 37 enum modes ranging from 'impact' to 'crashes', an agent gets no sense of the tool's real breadth from the text alone.

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?

'use first and continuously before built-in file search' gives genuine ordering guidance, telling the agent to prefer this over built-in search. However it offers no when-not conditions, does not mention the sibling aiworkhub_manager_context_graph_search or any of the 37 modes, so mode selection is left entirely to inference.

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