graph_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, return format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a query tool.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant or verbose elements.

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 tool is simple (1 param, output schema exists), so the minimal description is partly adequate. However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., read-only, permissions) and no mention of output structure, though covered by output schema, leaves some gaps.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains that the 'symbol_id' is the symbol whose callers are sought. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema field name.

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 action ('Find') and the resource ('blast radius'), defined as which functions call a symbol. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_index_status (status) and semantic_search (generic search) by focusing on dependency analysis.

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 the tool is for dependency analysis but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. The usage context is deducible but not spelled out.

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