Extract function dependency tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recursively project' but does not explain what happens with cyclic dependencies, the output format, whether recursion respects a depth limit (maxDepth), or what 'statically named' implies (e.g., dynamic calls are ignored). This lack of behavioral detail could lead to incorrect expectations.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, subject, and scope. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise.

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 tool that recursively computes a dependency tree, the description is minimal. It lacks information on the return value/tree structure, how depth is controlled, behavior on missing functions, and the distinction between static and dynamic calls. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is insufficient for reliable use by an agent.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not define 'collectionId', explicitly tie 'functionName' to the searched script, or explain that 'maxDepth' controls recursion depth. The schema itself has no property descriptions, so the agent is left without any parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Find a named function') on a specific resource ('collected scripts') and the recursive projection of statically named call dependencies. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'search_in_scripts' or 'understand_code', and the phrasing immediately conveys the tool's core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or mention sibling tools. For an AI agent selecting among many analysis-focused siblings, this is a clear gap.

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