codegraph_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the sorting order and that all nodes of a type are returned, which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is read-only, whether it requires a prior build, how results are paginated, or how token_budget/limit affect the output.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the core action, the scope, and the ordering in an efficient way. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral detail (PageRank sorting) is front-loaded.

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?

Despite the relative simplicity of listing nodes, the description leaves important gaps: the meaning of path is unclear, the relationship between limit and token_budget is not explained, there is no output schema, and no guidance is given on how this compares with sibling tools. An agent would likely need to guess at required path semantics.

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 only 50%: the required path and type parameters have no descriptions, while limit and token_budget do. The description weakly clarifies type ('of a given type') but leaves path completely unexplained, and it does not explain how limit and token_budget interact. The description does not compensate for the undocumented required parameters.

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: 'List all nodes of a given type'. It also adds sorting behavior ('sorted by PageRank (most connected first)'), which clarifies what the tool returns. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like codegraph_query or codegraph_filter, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as codegraph_query, codegraph_filter, or codegraph_context. The description only implies it is for retrieving all nodes of a type; it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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