reachability

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully describes the tool's behavior: BFS over caller graph, returns shortest chain, output structure, and static analysis limitations. It adds value beyond structured fields.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core question. Each sentence adds value, but the parameter list could be integrated more seamlessly. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage, algorithm, output format, and limitations. Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations), it is fairly complete. The output schema is partially described, compensating for its absence.

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?

The description adds meaning to three key parameters (from_symbol, to_symbol, max_depth) beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the 'format' and 'project_root' parameters, which are also present. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates.

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 purpose: checking if one symbol transitively calls another and finding the call chain. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_callers by stating when to use it instead.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool ('instead of chaining find_callers rounds') and mentions a limitation (cannot follow function pointers). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to all siblings.

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