ccg_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the return content: location plus which edge types are produced per node kind (callers/callees for symbols; contains/includes/importers for files). What's missing is whether this is read-only, whether edges are directional, and any limits on how many edges are returned.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core output then the per-type edge breakdown. Efficient, though the telegraphic style borders on under-specification.

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-lookup tool with no output schema and ten siblings, the description does not explain invocation (query syntax, direction/semantics of returned edges) or when this beats ccg_callers/ccg_callees. It gives partial return-value context but leaves key operational questions unanswered.

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 67%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters. The 'query' parameter's meaning (symbol keyword or qualified_name fragment) and 'show_unresolved' are only explained in the schema, so the description adds no parameter value and 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?

The description conveys that the tool returns a single node's location plus related edges, and it distinguishes between symbol and file node types. However, there is no explicit verb ('get/retrieve') and the cryptic name 'ccg_node' needs the description to carry full meaning. It differentiates symbol vs. file behavior, which helps against siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ccg_callers, ccg_callees, or ccg_explore. The description implies it covers both caller/callee edges and file containment, but doesn't say when a direct node lookup is preferred over those specialized siblings.

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