Shortest call path between two symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool shows how control flows, implying a read-only traversal, but it does not describe what the output looks like, how errors (e.g., no path found) are handled, or any side effects. The extra wording beyond the title adds only a modest conceptual clarification.

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, well-crafted sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the main idea and the example adds value without unnecessary length. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks parameter semantics, return value information, and explicit usage conditions. The example helps but does not compensate for the missing critical details needed for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (from, to, repo, maxDepth). It fails to indicate that 'from' and 'to' are symbols or how 'maxDepth' affects the search. The description entirely omits parameter semantics, which is critical given the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 that this tool finds the shortest call path between two symbols, distinguishing it from sibling tools like who_calls and what_it_calls. The example 'from an HTTP handler to a database write' concretely illustrates the purpose and adds specificity beyond the title.

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 through the example but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like who_calls or what_it_calls, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The example provides context, but no direct guidance is given.

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