aliases

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

The description discloses the key relational behavior: it finds values that share a heap object via POINTS_TO. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it still does not clarify whether aliasing is transitive, whether the result set includes the original value, or what a 'path_shape' is. It gives some useful behavioral detail, but not complete transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the core concept, which is good. However, the trailing 'path_shape' is unexplained and reads as a cryptic fragment rather than a useful clarification. The compactness is effective, but this stray label reduces clarity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single required parameter, the description still leaves important gaps. It does not explain the expected return format, the meaning of 'path_shape', or how 'this one' maps to the value parameter. It is enough to guess but not enough to call confidently in all contexts.

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 schema documents the required 'value' only as a string, with 50% description coverage. The description adds almost nothing about what this parameter should contain — an expression, a path, a variable name, an allocation site, etc. It says 'this one' without explaining how the string must reference the target.

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 identifies the operation: return the values that alias a given object, sharing a heap object via POINTS_TO. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like points_to, which likely reports the pointed-to target rather than the alias set. The phrase 'destructuring/alias set' adds specificity. It loses a point because 'this one' is context-dependent and the overall intent is more implied than explicitly stated.

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 you want the alias set or destructuring set for a target value. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like points_to or callers, nor does it name exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is recognizable but not actively guided.

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