codebase_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that with no args it returns a ranked list of auto-detected entry points, and with entrypoint it returns a call tree. It mentions depth default and max, which is behavioral. There is no mention of side effects, but tracing is inherently read-only, and the description is transparent about the behavioral difference.

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, both dense with information. The first sentence states the core purpose with a clarifying question, and the second explains the no-args vs entrypoint behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior: listing entry points or tracing a call tree. It could mention the output format briefly, but for a tracing tool with clear intent, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavior difference based on entrypoint presence, default depth of 5, and max 10. It clarifies that file is a disambiguation hint, which aligns with the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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 traces execution flow forward from an entry point, returning a call tree. It distinguishes between no arguments (returns auto-detected entry points) and with entrypoint (returns call tree). It names conventional entry points (main(), framework routes, tests), and the purpose is distinct from siblings like codebase_symbol or codebase_graph_query.

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 explains when to omit entrypoint (to list entry points) and when to provide it (to trace). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide based on whether they need to discover entry points or trace a specific one.

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