compare_graph_to_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's action (cross-checking, surfacing, flagging) but does not clarify side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description is partially informative but lacks important behavioral context.

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 composed of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence captures the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 covers only the core concept and usage hint. It omits details about return format, parameter meanings, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 only 11%, meaning the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. However, the description does not mention any parameters except implicitly 'regex text search' (which relates to 'pattern'). Parameters like 'symbol', 'include', 'edge_kinds' remain unexplained, relying on the sparse schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs ('cross-check', 'surfaces', 'flags') and resources ('graph caller edges', 'regex text search of indexed source'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like compare_graph_to_scip. The purpose is immediately clear: compare graph edges to text search to find missed call sites and false edges.

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 advises using the tool 'when you suspect graph coverage gaps', providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like compare_graph_to_scip, which could be a similar tool for SCIP-based comparison.

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