what_it_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the transitive, graph-walking nature of the tool, but does not mention performance characteristics, result size limits, or other runtime behavior beyond what the schema hints at.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core definition in the first sentence and practical guidance in the second. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic invocation. Some gaps remain around parameter semantics and explicit sibling differentiation, but the output schema and schema constraints partially fill those 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: symbol and depth are documented, but limit and min_confidence lack descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or clarifying their units/purpose.

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: build a forward call tree of what a symbol transitively depends on. This distinguishes it from reverse-call tools like who_calls, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 provides concrete use cases: understanding an unfamiliar function without reading every file, and identifying the layer a piece of code sits in. It gives clear context but does not state when to prefer an alternative tool or when not to use this one.

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