Most depended-upon symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'ranked by in-degree' and explicitly notes compatibility ('works on Neo4j AuraDB Free, no GDS required'), which is useful technical context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or the exact return format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only valuable additional context (ranking method and compatibility). Every word earns its place — no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only ranking tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It tells the agent what is returned (ranked list of symbols) but omits parameter semantics and any caveats about repositories or limits. Given the zero-coverage schema, a bit more detail would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, and the description provides no information about the 'repo' or 'limit' parameters. The tool's purpose implies 'repo' is the repository to analyze and 'limit' caps results, but the agent is left to infer this without any guidance on defaults, format, or role. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 what the tool does: it identifies 'symbols with the most distinct callers' and ranks them. The phrase 'the code where a mistake propagates furthest' adds intent. This distinguishes it from siblings like who_calls (which traces callers of a specific symbol) and impact_of (which likely analyzes a given symbol's impact).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to find high-risk code where mistakes have broad reach. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give 'when not to use' instructions, but the use case is implicit and distinct from sibling tools that focus on individual symbols or paths.

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