Find the shortest path between two symbols in a C++ coroutine call graph, or between two files via includes using file:path or *.hpp queries.
Shortest path between two symbols (control) or two files (includes). Use file:path or *.hpp queries for include topology.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dst | Yes | ||
| src | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| limit | No |
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 not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether results are deterministic, how depth/limit affect output, or any error conditions. Only a minimal hint about include topology is given.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the control-vs-include modes.
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 4-parameter graph query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the definition is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, depth/limit behavior, or when the tool is appropriate versus siblings.
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 0% and the description only hints that 'src' and 'dst' can take file:path or *.hpp forms. It does not explain what 'depth' or 'limit' mean or how they constrain the path search, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'shortest path between two symbols (control) or two files (includes)', making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ccg_query or ccg_node by naming the graph-traversal semantics, though it doesn't explicitly reference them.
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?
Provides a usage hint ('Use file:path or *.hpp queries for include topology') that indicates a query syntax context, but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ccg_callers or ccg_explore, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.