explore

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: it performs a one-shot operation returning a compact block with ranked symbols, source heads, graph neighbours, and test files. It implies no destructive side effects, but could explicitly state it's read-only. With no annotations, this is good but not perfect.

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 sentences with no waste: first sentence defines the output, second sentence provides usage context. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description lists return items (ranked symbols, source heads, graph neighbours, test files) and parameter behavior. It doesn't detail pagination or limits, but as a one-shot tool it's sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 value by explaining that query is split into terms by the binary, and graph controls including neighbours. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: one-shot exploration returning ranked context and call/inheritance graph blast-radius. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly offering an alternative to chaining find_usages, read_symbol, and call_tree.

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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool instead of separate calls, stating it's cheaper and faster for understanding an area. This provides clear guidance.

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