codegraph_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are sorted by line number, but doesn't clarify directory traversal behavior, pagination via limit, or explicitly state read-only guarantees beyond the word 'List'.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every sentence 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?

Provides purpose, sorting, and usage hint, but lacks details about the output format (what fields per symbol), limit semantics, and potential errors. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 covers 75% of params; description adds context that file_path can be a directory and that 'all symbols' are returned by default, reinforcing kind's optionality. It doesn't elaborate on limit or team_id beyond schema, so added value is moderate.

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 action (list), the resource (all symbols), and the scope (file or directory). It distinguishes from sibling tools by framing it as an overview tool, and the sorting detail clarifies the return order.

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?

It explicitly states to use this tool to get an overview of what a file contains, providing clear use context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses an explicit exclusion or comparison.

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