cpg_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It doesn't mention side effects, performance, output format, or constraints like whether the code parameter is required. The description is too thin to disclose anything beyond the raw feature list.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load key information about what the tool does or how to call it; instead it reads as a product tagline.

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?

With 4 parameters, a rich enum, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is vastly incomplete. It explains none of the modes, the meaning of depth, or the expected output, leaving an agent unable to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters (code, mode, depth, symbol) or explain their roles. The enum values like blast_radius and def_use are self-explanatory, but no guidance is given for depth or symbol.

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 mentions specific analysis features like def-use chains, CFG, and blast radius, which suggests it's a code analysis tool, but it uses the vague metaphor 'radar' rather than a clear verb-resource structure. It doesn't explicitly state that it operates on code or what input it expects.

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 provides no context about when to use this tool, what scenarios it fits, or any alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, and no exclusions are stated. An agent would have to infer that it's for code analysis from the feature list.

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