codegraph_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by stating that results are sorted by PageRank, that filters are optional and freely combinable, and by explaining filter value formats. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or how result nodes are shaped, but 'filter' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then uses a terse parameter key to pack filter semantics into one readable paragraph. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 the 10-parameter surface and absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides a strong foundation: it explains filtering semantics, ordering, and token budget. It lacks explicit guidance on what each returned node contains and does not clarify the required 'path' parameter, so it is not fully complete.

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 adds meaningful semantics for many parameters: node_type values, called_by/calls as node names, return_type as substring match, file_pattern as glob, and token_budget as max response tokens. It leaves the required 'path' parameter unexplained and relies on the schema for 'limit', which is a minor gap given 60% schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Filter graph nodes by semantic properties.' It also conveys specific behavior like PageRank ordering and optional filters. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as codegraph_query or codegraph_nodes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage — filter graph nodes by semantic properties — and clarifies that all filters are optional and combinable. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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