get_call_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool produces, not whether it is read-only, what input it requires beyond requestId, how minDuration affects results, whether events must exist, or any failure modes.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the essential action and output clearly, though it may be too terse to fully support tool selection.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, a single sentence is insufficient. It does not explain the relationship between the requestId and the generated tree, the meaning of minDuration in this context, what the resulting tree looks like, or when an agent should prefer this over related tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond indicating that timeline events are the data source, which is a useful hint but not substantial. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('build') and a specific resource ('hierarchical execution tree from timeline events'), which clearly conveys the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_timeline or explain_request_flow, but the resource concept is distinct enough to be understood.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_timeline, explain_request_flow, or get_query_stack_trace. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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