Reveal the ordered call and await sequence inside a C++ coroutine function by source line to clarify in-function execution order.
Ordered calls/await sequence inside a function (by source line). Preferred over explore edge_kind=seq for understanding in-function order.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: results are ordered by source line, and it is a preferred alternative to explore. However, it says nothing about return shape, how limit truncates the sequence, or what unresolved stubs imply.
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 zero waste; the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the routing hint. Nothing redundant.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description should carry more of the load. It conveys what the sequence is and its ordering, but omits result shape, limit semantics, and how unresolved entries appear, leaving the agent to infer these.
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, limit is not). The description implies query identifies a function symbol, which adds a little meaning, but it does not clarify limit or show_unresolved behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does most of the work.
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?
Names a specific resource and scope: the ordered call/await sequence inside a single function, ordered by source line. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ccg_explore path (edge_kind=seq), so an agent can choose without opening schemas.
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?
Gives a clear positive condition ('understanding in-function order') and names the alternative it supersedes (explore edge_kind=seq). It does not state when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g., cross-function or interprocedural ordering), leaving a small gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.