Trace what a C++ symbol calls or awaits, ordered by source line, to map outgoing coroutine dependencies and optionally include unresolved stubs.
What this symbol calls / awaits (outgoing). Ordered by source line (#1,#2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Symbol keyword (name or qualified_name fragment) | |
| show_unresolved | No | Include unresolved::* stubs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: results are ordered by source line and numbered (#1,#2). It says nothing about resolution behavior, output volume relative to limit, or ambiguity handling.
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?
Two short fragments with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The '(#1,#2)' notation is slightly cryptic without further explanation, keeping it from being fully self-explanatory.
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 graph-traversal tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and its ordering, but omits result shape, what limit does to output, and how unresolved stubs affect results. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 67%; 'query' and 'show_unresolved' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' has only a type and default. The description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters, so the partially covered fields remain unclarified.
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 relationship being retrieved: the outgoing calls/awaits of a symbol, explicitly labeled '(outgoing)'. That verb+resource framing implicitly distinguishes it from sibling ccg_callers, though no sibling is named outright.
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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The '(outgoing)' tag hints at the contrast with ccg_callers, but the agent must infer that ccg_callers is the alternative for incoming edges; nothing states prerequisites or that results depend on resolved symbols.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.