codegraph_report

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates that the tool returns a report and names its contents, but it does not disclose whether the report is written to a file or returned as text, whether the tool triggers a build, or what side effects or dependencies exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety cues.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The dash-separated list of report contents is information-dense and readable, and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a vaguely defined required path parameter, the description is too thin to support confident invocation. Missing context includes what the path should point to, whether a build must already exist, whether the tool creates or overwrites a file, and what the returned value actually is. The contents list helps, but core operational details are absent.

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 single 'path' parameter has zero schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what path refers to (e.g., project path, graph database path, or output path). The description adds no meaning beyond the generic schema field name, leaving an agent to guess the parameter's role.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('CODEGRAPH_REPORT.md'), and it lists the report's contents (god nodes, clusters, surprising connections, suggested questions). It is clearly about producing a report, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like codegraph_html or codegraph_context.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor are alternatives named. The phrasing implies it is used when a report is needed, but there is no context about prerequisites such as requiring a prior codegraph_build, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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