get_call_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying BFS shortest-path semantics, but says nothing about result ordering, direction, or behavior when no path exists. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, stating the operation and the algorithm. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it could have afforded one more clause on when to use it.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and simple flat parameters, the definition provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of usage/routing guidance relative to the many dependency-analysis siblings.

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 all four parameters (from_name, to_name, project, level) are documented in the schema itself, including the level enum semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific resource ('dependency path between two symbols') and mechanism ('BFS through the dep graph'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_dependencies and get_dependents that operate at a single level. It is clear what the tool computes, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_dependencies, get_dependents, get_change_impact, or find_symbol. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer usage purely from the one-line purpose.

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