graphify_build

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral details: writing to graphify-out/, incremental update behavior, and optional skip of visualization. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it lacks information on auth or rate limits.

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 well-structured with an Args list, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly but remains efficient.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage and 5 parameters, the description covers all key inputs and the primary output (graphify-out/). The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The description is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: path, mode (deep vs empty), update (re-extract changed files), cluster_only (rerun clustering), and no_viz (skip HTML). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb 'Build or update' and the resource 'knowledge graph from a folder', including the output destination. It is specific enough to differentiate from some siblings like graphify_add, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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?

The description explains parameter modes (deep, update, cluster_only, no_viz) with brief guidance on when to use each. However, it does not provide explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like graphify_add or graphify_query.

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