get_call_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the algorithm (BFS) and the goal (shortest path), but does not address side effects, read-only nature, or potential performance implications. Basic but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It starts with the core purpose immediately. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters (2 required, all with schema descriptions) and no output schema, the description covers the algorithm but lacks details like return format, typical use cases, or complexity hints. Adequate but not fully complete for a graph traversal tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (mentions BFS algorithm), but does not elaborate on parameter behavior or format. The level parameter's schema description is already detailed.

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 purpose: 'Shortest dependency path between two symbols (BFS through the dep graph).' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('dependency path'), and is distinct from sibling tools like get_dependencies or find_import_cycles.

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 (finding shortest dependency path) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_dependencies). No exclusions or context for selection are provided, making it merely implied.

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