get_interactions_by_function

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool retrieves all interactions for a function in both directions, which is useful but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with a dash for additional context. No wasted words; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter and readOnly behavior, the lack of output schema means the agent needs to infer the return structure. The description mentions 'trace dependency graphs' but does not specify what interactions look like, which is a gap in completeness.

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 single parameter 'function_name' is described in the schema with a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score.

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 action ('Get all interactions'), the resource ('for a function'), and the scope ('both as source and target') with a specific purpose ('trace dependency graphs'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from similar siblings like get_interactions_by_file.

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 implies usage for dependency graph tracing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_interactions_by_file). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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