codebase_flow

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains outputs (ranked entry points or call tree) but omits details about side effects, permission requirements, or limitations (e.g., language support, performance). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently explains both usage modes.

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?

With no output schema, description should explain return structure. It does not describe format of call tree or what 'ranked list' contains. Depth parameter behavior is not explained. Adequate for basic use but incomplete for detailed understanding.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying the conditional behavior based on whether entrypoint is provided, going beyond individual parameter docs.

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?

Description clearly states the tool traces execution flow forward from an entry point, and outlines two distinct modes (auto-detected entry points with no args, call tree with entrypoint arg). It differentiates from siblings like codebase_symbol or codebase_impact by focusing specifically on call flow.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different tasks.

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