osnova_warp

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact return format (file:line), the accepted input forms, and a crucial caveat that an empty list means 'no indexed caller, not proof that none exists.' It does not describe pagination or the non-full mode summary behavior, which the schema handles.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 query tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what it returns, how to call it, when to use it, and a critical interpretation caveat about empty results. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so parameters like full, depth, and direction are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces direction and accepted symbol formats but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with 'Call graph:' and states both directions (who calls a symbol, what it calls) with exact output format 'file:line'. A specific verb+resource that is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like osnova_outline or osnova_ground.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use before changing a signature or deleting code.' Names the default direction inline. This directly ties the tool to a developer workflow, leaving little ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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