Query a symbol's direct outgoing relations like calls, imports, and uses, showing confidence and resolution details for each relation.
A symbol's direct outgoing relations — calls, imports, uses, inherits — each line carrying its confidence and resolution mechanism. For "what does this touch" before reading a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget | No | Token budget for lines. | |
| symbol | Yes | Node id, label, or free text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v14.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds behavioral detail: it specifies the output includes confidence and resolution mechanism per line, and that it covers direct outgoing relations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 waste. The core functionality is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a quick usage hint. Perfectly 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 read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, output format, and usage context. It lacks explicit error handling or edge cases, but that is not critical for a query tool. The use case is well stated.
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 100%, so both 'symbol' and 'budget' are adequately documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: it returns a symbol's direct outgoing relations (calls, imports, uses, inherits) with confidence and resolution mechanism. It also provides a concrete use case ('what does this touch before reading a file'), which distinguishes it from siblings like graph_path or graph_impact.
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 gives a clear context for when to use it: 'For what does this touch before reading a file.' It implies the tool is for exploring dependencies before diving into code, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.