Call graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by disclosing the depth cap of 3 and the reason behind it (exponential fan-out). It also describes the output modality as a navigable graph, adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the depth-cap rationale is a useful, concise addition that earns its place.

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, no required parameters, and zero parameter descriptions, the description leaves important gaps: what 'name' vs 'address' mean, whether either is sufficient, and what the navigable graph output actually contains. For a tool with this much structural ambiguity, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it does not. 'name' and 'address' are both undocumented and their relationship is unclear, and 'depth' is only implicitly referenced by the cap statement, not explained as a user-controllable parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Draw') and clearly identifies the resource: callers and callees around one function. It also distinguishes this tool by emphasizing the navigable graph output, which separates it from list-oriented siblings like xrefs_to or list_functions.

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 context for use is implied: call_graph is for exploring the caller/callee relationships of a single function as a graph. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over xrefs_to or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative routing.

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