trace

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

Disclosures beyond annotations: 'ONE deterministic step', 'exact SHORTEST call path', and detection of reversed dependencies. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which description reinforces. No contradiction; adds behavioral nuance about short-circuiting multiple hops.

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?

Two succinct, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. Key advantage stated first, then use-cases and pairing. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers both operation modes, pairing suggestions, and limits of ranked search. No output schema, but description implies call path/tree returns. For a navigation tool with rich schema and annotations, this is nearly complete; minor gap is lack of format details but format param is schema-documented.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: explains 'from' and 'to' roles, notes 'from' can be symbol name or sym:id, clarifies depth default (12) and max. This exceeds the schema's minimal descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it performs call-graph navigation in one step, with two modes (from-to for shortest path, from-only for outbound tree). It distinguishes from the alternative of hopping context→context and is distinct from siblings like context (1-hop neighbors) and impact (blast radius).

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?

Explicitly says when to use: for hidden/transitive dependencies that ranked search can't surface. Advises pairing with impact and context, giving clear contextual guidance. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides adequate usage context.

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