ccg_explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read/query operation but never states read-only safety, how the default depth/limit bound results, or what truncated output looks like, leaving behavioral traits largely undisclosed.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Compact, though the trailing analogy is more confusing than informative.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 20% schema coverage, an agent lacks enough information to call this correctly. The description should at minimum explain the query semantics and result shaping.

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 only 20% (edge_kind is the sole documented param). The description covers 'in/out' and 'optional BFS depth', roughly mapping to depth, but says nothing about query, limit, or show_unresolved, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It states a graph-neighborhood operation (in/out edges around a symbol with BFS depth), which is a specific verb-ish concept, but the parenthetical 'like codegraph explore for coroutines' is ambiguous and does not cleanly separate it from siblings such as ccg_callers, ccg_path, or coro_explore.

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 statement of when to choose this over ccg_callers, ccg_callees, ccg_path, or coro_explore. The 'like codegraph explore' aside gestures at a use case but gives no selection criteria or exclusion.

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