codegraph_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates a read-only aggregate-returning operation, but it does not mention potential side effects, required authorization, or any edge cases about missing indexes or empty repos.

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 what the tool returns and followed by its primary use case. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 low-complexity stats tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description names the complete set of returned metrics and the intended usage. It lacks only minor behavioral details that would benefit from annotations.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that repo_path scopes the stats, but it does not significantly extend parameter meaning.

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') with a clear resource ('indexed CodeGraph statistics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling search/indexing tools by framing it as a coverage check.

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 when to use the tool: 'Use this to check indexing coverage before searching.' This gives clear context for invocation, though it does not name specific alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions.

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