get_call_graph

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the high-level function without disclosing traits like destructive potential, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. For a tool that likely performs read analysis, more context on computational cost or side effects would be beneficial.

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, complete sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately concise.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description omits details about the output format (tree structure) and does not explain return values or usage context. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, and parameter descriptions in the schema are sufficient. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'generates caller-callee trees,' which is already implied by the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the action ('generates caller-callee trees') and the resource ('program execution pathways for a given function or method'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_references and find_definitions by focusing on tracing call hierarchies.

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 implies usage for tracing execution pathways but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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