skeleton

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the elision of unrelated code, the ranking behavior, the annotation fields on each sink, and the drill-down relationship to `candidate_detail` or `sources_of`. It does not mention what happens with invalid inputs, no-argument calls, or very large functions, which prevents a 5.

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 dense, front-loaded with the core operation, and built around a single coherent view: sink + guard + structure. Each sentence has a purpose, though the middle rationale sentence could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does the needed work of explaining what the returned view contains: sinks, annotations, and guard/branch structure. However, because the input schema has no required parameters, the behavior when neither `function` nor `candidate_id` is supplied is unclear, and priority for combined inputs is not stated. These are meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 already covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema semantics: `function` is a name or node id, and `candidate_id` focuses on an enclosing function. It adds no new parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema 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?

The description immediately names the operation and resource: 'Render a function's sink map as a pseudo-function.' It then lists exactly what is included: all sink families, size expression, destination-capacity status, guard dominance, and the controlling branch/loop structure. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like `guard_dominance` or `sources_of`.

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?

It gives clear invocation guidance: use `function` for the whole enclosing function or `candidate_id` to focus on its enclosing function. It also routes operand provenance to `candidate_detail` / `sources_of`, clarifying what `skeleton` is not for. It lacks explicit exclusions or any direct comparison against nearby siblings such as `guard_dominance`, so it stops short of a 5.

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