hubs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the UNION graph scope, the ranking rule, row contents (node_id, handle, fan_in/out, degree), and important entry-point flags (exported | dispatch_target | callback), and that it is read-only for cold resolution. It does not explicitly state whether it requires a pre-loaded graph or triggers a rebuild — a small but meaningful gap — but the idea of full behavior is well conveyed.

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?

Three sentences, which is compact. The ordering is sensible: it declares the core semantics and scope, then the output fields, then the usage workflow. The sentence structure is somewhat dense (row field list is long), but nothing is wasted and the agent gets the necessary qualifiers — it touches a good balance.

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?

The description carries the load for a tool with no annotations and no output schema: it describes the computation scope and the exact output fields. It misses clear pagination/limit behavior and the relationship to load_graph/build_graph (whether the underlying graph state matters). Overall it's a solid, self-contained, minimal-missing-context definition relative to its complexity.

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 explains 25% of the parameters (only 'format' is described); the description names the format but mostly does so implicitly. It does map 'n' to the 'HIGH n highest-degree nodes' phrase, and the output row structure clarifies some of the output semantics. However, the distinction between 'n' and 'limit' and the pagination meaning of 'offset' are not explained and the schema description adds nothing.

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?

Identifies a very specific operation: the highest-degree ranked functions over the union of direct and indirect call graph edges, with fan_in + fan_out as the ranking key. It clearly differentiates from traversal tools (callers/callees/read_body) by calling itself the 'spine' and the fallback first step.

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?

Provides an explicit usage directive: 'start here to find what a subsystem is built around, THEN callers/callees/read_body to navigate.' The phrase 'no name knowledge needed' also helps distinguish it from name-requiring alternatives like search. Lacks an explicit 'when NOT to use' statement, but the general-methodology is clear.

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