osnova_plumb

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral nuance by clarifying that 'confirmed' means an indexed resolved edge, not runtime proof, and that it can surface omitted dependents. It doesn't describe output format, but no output schema exists, so this is a minor gap.

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 first sentence front-loads the core operation and classification outcomes; the second gives usage advice; the third defines 'confirmed.' It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the four classification outcomes, usage timing, and the meaning of 'confirmed.' It could specify output structure, but the agent has enough to invoke and interpret 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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning and default. The description restates the core inputs (symbol and path:line sites) but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verification purpose: given a symbol and claimed call sites, it classifies each as confirmed, name match only, no call, or omitted indexed dependent. This is distinct from the sibling tools (which appear to be discovery/index tools), and an agent can tell immediately what the tool does.

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?

It says 'Use before declaring a caller list complete,' which gives one clear context, but there are no alternatives named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. For a tool whose siblings include likely related graph tools, more routing guidance would help.

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