Explore a C++17 coroutine call graph by query. Search symbols, trace callers and callees, and inspect neighborhood depth around coroutine-aware code.
Alias of ccg_explore (legacy).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| device | No |
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. 'Legacy' is the only trait mentioned and it is not behavioral.
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?
The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but for a tool with four parameters and no other documentation, this level of brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not earn its place as sufficient guidance.
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?
Given four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the tool's operation, parameter usage, or how it relates to the sibling ccg_explore beyond a bare alias statement.
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?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them (query, depth, limit, device). It offers no meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the bare schema shows.
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 only states that this tool is an alias of ccg_explore (legacy). It does not provide a verb or resource to explain what the tool actually does, so an agent cannot understand its purpose without already knowing ccg_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?
The word 'legacy' hints that this tool is deprecated and that ccg_explore may be preferred, but there is no explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus ccg_explore or other siblings. No usage conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.