get_call_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions BFS and the max_depth parameter, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no path exists, or error handling. This is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 two sentences with no fluff: first sentence states core purpose, second gives a crucial prerequisite. 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?

Given the complexity (pathfinding with BFS, prerequisite state), the description covers the key context. It lacks details on what happens if no path is found or if workspace_path is needed, but the output schema likely covers return values. Slightly incomplete but mostly sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., max_depth default and max are already in schema). It does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 finds a call path between two functions using BFS, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_callers/get_callees by focusing on paths rather than direct calls.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (call edges populated by summarize_function()), providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct.

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