callgraph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it usefully discloses that indirect calls are unresolved, which is real limitation context. However it says nothing about permissions, output form, or traversal cost, leaving substantial gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the key caveat in parentheses. Every clause 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is insufficient. The traversal depth, node cap, and layout behavior an agent must set are unexplained, and nothing indicates what the graph output looks like.

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 0% across 5 params. The description only indirectly touches 'root' via 'RVA/VA' and hints at traversal via 'breadth-first', while path, depth, layout, and max_nodes are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it produces a breadth-first direct-call graph rooted at an RVA/VA. This is clear and distinguishable from generic xref tools like xrefs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given siblings like xrefs and xrefs_rip that also traverse references, the description gives no basis for choosing callgraph over them.

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