get_graphify_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does: it discloses read-only access, zero mutations, no network calls, and no side effects. It also explains the edge case that no graph exists (graphify-out/ missing) and that the tool then safely returns a non-error 'unbuilt' status with the generation command.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into labeled When-to-use, When-NOT-to-use, and Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place: the safety sentence is not redundant here because there are no annotations, and the Returns sentence is needed because there is no output schema.

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?

This is a simple diagnostic with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, and the description covers safety, the missing-graph case, the return states, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains repo_path, its default, and the '.' fallback. The description only implies repo scoping ('for a repository') and adds no path syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it inspects the operational presence and artifact health of the Graphify AST knowledge graph for a repository. It clearly separates this from query_codebase_graph, which handles traversal, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 gives an explicit 'When to use' (before analyzing large codebases, to check whether precomputed AST graphs exist) and an explicit 'When NOT to use' (for symbol, god-class, or dependency queries, use query_codebase_graph instead). It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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