execute_custom_read_cypher

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the query must be read-only and MATCH-only. It does not say what happens if a write clause is passed (rejected vs. silently stripped), whether results are capped or paginated, or what graph shape/return format comes back, which are real gaps for a raw-query 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation, its scope, and its hard constraint appear immediately. Nothing in it can be trimmed without losing information.

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 tool that asks the agent to author raw Cypher against an internal code graph, the definition is under-specified: nothing is said about available node labels, relationship types, or property names, which an agent needs to write a working query. With no annotations and no output schema, neither structured field compensates for this omission.

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% and both parameters (query, workspacePath) are documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema — it never clarifies, for example, how workspacePath affects which graph partition is queried or what Cypher syntax dialect is supported.

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?

States a specific verb (execute) and resource (custom read-only Cypher query) scoped to the code graph, plus a hard constraint (MATCH only). It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings such as execute_project_query or list_project_queries, so an agent must infer that this is the ad-hoc path versus the saved-query path.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'custom read-only Cypher' suggests this is the escape hatch when the structured query tools (find_symbol, get_callers, execute_project_query) are insufficient. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no prerequisite such as an initialized/indexed workspace is mentioned.

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