memoryguard_codegraph_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It adds a useful limitation ('without claiming production readiness') and notes the report is 'scoped,' but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how capability is determined, or what failure modes exist.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and the production-readiness caveat is an efficient, purposeful addition.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description communicates the core purpose and a key limitation. However, it does not describe the return format, how 'capability' is represented, or when this tool should be preferred over related status tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Scoped' suggests the workspace parameter controls the scope of the counts, adding partial meaning. However, it does not explicitly connect 'workspace' to the scoping behavior or explain optionality/defaults, though there is only one optional parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names a concrete resource ('scoped CodeGraph counts and Graphify metadata-export capability'). It clearly distinguishes this as a status/capability tool rather than a query or mutation tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling status/query tools. The purpose implies usage, but no alternatives, exclusions, or triggering conditions are provided.

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