flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries an extra burden. It discloses key behavior—that the tool follows both value-flow and points-to edges and bridges aliases via the heap—which is useful. However, it leaves out important operational detail such as the impact of the limit parameter or what 'path shape' refers to.

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 compact at one sentence and leads with the core operation. The final 'path_shape' fragment is unclear and seems more like sloppy shorthand than an intentional, well-structured explanation, so it does not earn full marks.

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 graph traversal tool with no output schema and limited parameter documentation, the description conveys the fundamental relation traversal but omits practical context: what the result looks like, how limit applies, and how this relates to sibling tools. It is adequate for a minimal use but leaves notable gaps.

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 33%, so the prose must compensate. The description characterizes the seed as 'a value/symbol', which gives some meaning to the required parameter. It does not explain limit or format in depth, though format already has an inline description and the title 'limit' implies a cap.

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 states a specific verb ('forward') and resource ('value-flow cone'), and explicitly defines the relations it traverses: VALUE_FLOWS_TO and POINTS_TO. It is clear enough to distinguish from many siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related tools like reaches or flow_pass.

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 forward traversal usage but does not state when to choose this tool over siblings such as sources_of, reaches, or taint. No scenarios, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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