tldr_cfg

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, output format, or side effects. It only says 'shows', implying read-only, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or what the output actually is.

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 short sentences are concise and front-loaded. However, the description could be slightly improved by adding more context without being verbose.

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 the schema covers all parameters and no output schema exists, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on output format, language support, or limitations, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain parameter nuances like file path resolution or function name conventions.

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 clearly states that the tool generates a control flow graph for a function, showing branches, loops, and execution paths. It specifies the resource (function) and action, and distinguishes from sibling tools like tldr_dfg (data flow graph) and tldr_arch (architecture).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as tldr_dfg for data flow or tldr_structure for overall structure. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints given.

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