code_graph_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the explicit 'Read-only' phrase adds no safety information. However, the detailed matching order and the effect of omitting kinds do provide behavioral context beyond the annotations and schema.

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 very compact and efficient: a meaningful matching chain in the first sentence, then the critical filter parameter and read-only note. It front-loads the important fuzzy behavior and avoids filler, making it easy to scan.

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 search behavior and the `kinds` filter, but it does not explain what `app_id` means, what `db_path` is used for, how `max_results` is applied, or what shape of results to expect. With no output schema and no additional parameter documentation, agents may struggle to correctly populate the required and useful arguments.

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?

The description explains the `kinds` parameter and implies that `query` is the symbol search term. It leaves `app_id`, `db_path`, and `max_results` unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage this is a real gap, especially for a required parameter like `app_id`.

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 states that this tool performs fuzzy symbol search over the code graph, with a specific ranked matching strategy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_graph_walk, code_graph_explain, or knowledge_search by tying the purpose to searchable symbols in the graph.

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 indicates what the tool does but does not tell an agent when to choose it over related search tools or graph tools. There are no references to alternatives such as code_graph_suggest, code_graph_explain, or grove/knowledge search tools, leaving usage selection to inference.

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