cross_language_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'resolved' implies some filtering, but there is no disclosure of permissions, pagination, result completeness, or output characteristics.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with a useful example and no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description gives enough to understand the core purpose, but without annotations or an output schema it could still clarify return shape, scope, and whether all project edges are returned. The low complexity keeps it from being inadequate, but gaps remain.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The empty schema is consistent with the description and no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List resolved cross-language HTTP edges,' with a concrete example clarifying the resource. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling graph/search tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_references, find_callers, or project_graph. The name and description imply its purpose, but no conditions, exclusions, or selection guidance are provided.

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