compare_graph_to_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It describes the tool's action (cross-checking, surfacing missed sites, flagging false edges) but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a read-like tool.

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: the first explains the operation, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains zero wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It explains the core purpose but does not clarify return values, parameter interactions, or edge cases, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not provide detail on any of the 9 parameters. It mentions 'symbol' and 'graph caller edges' but offers no guidance on how parameters like 'include', 'edge_kinds', or 'resolution' affect behavior.

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's function: cross-checking graph caller edges against a regex text search to surface missed call sites and flag false edges. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_graph_to_scip.

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 says 'Use when you suspect graph coverage gaps,' providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use or alternatives.

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