Graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the transitive blast-radius behavior and the critical refactoring caveat. It does not mention output format or potential cost, but the presence of an output schema and the concise warning make it adequately transparent.

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?

Three focused sentences, each earning its place. The core behavior is stated first, then the critical warning about transitive mode, with no filler or repetition.

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 key decision drivers: what the tool does, how direction works, and when transitive mode is mandatory. Required parameters and defaults are already in the schema, and an output schema exists, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by framing transitive=True as necessary for change-impact analysis and explaining the conceptual blast radius. This extra context helps an agent choose parameter values correctly.

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 names a specific action — tracing a function's callers or callees — and clearly distinguishes the tool from generic search or symbol lookup siblings. The direction parameter is explained inline, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool, when to set transitive=True, and contrasts it with grep, which cannot reveal transitive impact. This gives an agent actionable decision rules for using it before refactoring.

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