Callgraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the traversal mechanism ("walking call references"), but omits whether traversal is outward toward callees, whether it is read-only, how max_depth and max_nodes defaults affect results, and what the output looks like.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for what it says, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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 five-parameter graph traversal tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return shape, traversal direction, or how depth/node limits behave, leaving the agent with too little context to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only echoes the roots concept and adds no extra meaning for timeout, max_depth, max_nodes, or instance_id, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ("Build") and resource ("call graph") and clarifies the mechanism ("walking call references from the root function(s)"). It is clearly distinct from single-hop siblings like get_callees or get_callers, but it never names or contrasts with those alternatives explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as get_callees, get_callers, or trace_data_flow. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for multi-hop graph construction rather than one-hop queries.

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