callgraph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions that the graph is 'bounded' with limits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the IDB, what happens when limits are reached, or the return format.

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 zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a brief summary, though the overall definition is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 six parameters, two required, no annotations, no output schema, and a crowded sibling landscape, the description is far too sparse. It omits the required instance_id routing, usage context, and any behavioral traits, leaving major gaps that the schema alone cannot fill for an agent selecting a 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 schema fully documents all six parameters including defaults and maxes. The description alludes to depth/node/edge limits, which map to three parameters, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb 'Build' and resource 'callgraph', with modifier 'bounded from roots'. It distinguishes itself from simple list tools like callees by implying traversal, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling tool.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when a bounded callgraph traversal is preferable to related tools like callees.

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