find_call_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the use of 'recursive CTE graph traversal' and 'shortest call chain,' giving some algorithmic insight. However, it omits important traits such as read-only nature, performance implications for deep chains, error handling (e.g., no path found), and reliance on an indexed codebase. The transparency is moderate but incomplete.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There is no redundant or filler content. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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?

Given the complexity of a shortest-path graph traversal tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list of function names, depth), error cases (e.g., unreachable target), or the effect of max_depth. This leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret results and handle edge cases.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (from_function, to_function, max_depth). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely reiterates the concept of 'shortest call chain.' Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high (100%), a score of 3 is baseline, and the description contributes no extra semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the shortest call chain from one function to another using recursive CTE graph traversal.' This specifies a unique verb-resource combination (find + shortest call chain) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_callers and find_callees, which retrieve all callers or callees rather than a path between two functions.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need for an indexed codebase), limitations (e.g., max_depth constraint), or when not to use it. While the sibling tools provide contrasting functionality, no explicit comparison or usage context is given.

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