lilbrain_dataflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of describing behavior. It does disclose the core read-only behavior: showing upward callers and downward callees. However, it does not clarify whether relationships are direct or transitive, whether exact name matching is required, or what the result shape is.

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 tight sentence with the core scope front-loaded. The 'Data flow:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, and no additional detail is provided, but there is no wasted or misleading filler.

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 one-parameter read-only query, the description identifies both the input and the conceptual output, so it is minimally usable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should explain more about result granularity, depth of the call graph, and naming requirements to be considered complete.

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 input schema already fully documents 'name' as 'Function name', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds only 'for a function', which essentially restates the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 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 identifies the resource (a function) and the returned content (upstream callers and downstream callees), which distinguishes it from single-direction sibling tools like lilbrain_callers. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'show' or 'list', but the meaning is still specific and not a tautology.

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 should be used when a function's call relationships in both directions are needed, but it never states this explicitly or mentions alternatives such as lilbrain_callers. The usage context is inferable from the wording, but an agent is given no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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