component_boundary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially meets this by disclosing that results are bidirectional and include confidence scores and source locations. However, it does not state whether it is purely read-only, how the boundary is determined, or what happens with large result sets or missing components.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Show') and packs in relevant scope and output characteristics. It earns its length, but it is not structured enough to offset the missing usage and parameter guidance.

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 tool with five input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete. An agent may understand what the tool does but will not know what 'path component' means, how confidence is expressed, how limit/offset shape the result, or what the returned result structure looks like.

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 only 20%, leaving a higher burden on prose. The description implies meaning for from_component and to_component via 'two path components', but the terms are not mapped to parameter names, and limit, offset, and format are not explained in the description beyond the schema's minimal enum hint.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resources: calls, callbacks, and type references between two path components. It adds scope ('in both directions') and result details ('with confidence and source locations'). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the large sibling set, particularly cross_boundary_paths.

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?

Usage context is implied but not stated explicitly. From the description, an agent can infer this tool is for exploring interactions across component boundaries, but it provides no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like cross_boundary_paths or callers/callees, and it gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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