node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the tool returns line ranges specifically to enable targeted reading, avoiding reading whole files. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior or depth parameter effects.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then usage. No unnecessary words, every clause adds information.

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 provides a clear workflow and the primary return type (file:line ranges), but lacks an explicit return structure and does not explain the 'depth' parameter. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without guessing depth semantics.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly covers 'name' via 'a symbol', but completely omits 'depth' (an integer with default 2). The description adds zero meaning to the depth parameter, which could represent traversal depth or recursion level, leaving the agent to guess.

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 function: retrieving a symbol's connections (callers, callees, imports) with file:line ranges. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'symbol's connections', and it distinguishes itself from sibling search and impact by focusing on dependency relationships rather than discovery or impact analysis.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use AFTER search and then use built-in Read with the returned line ranges. It also positions itself as an alternative to reading whole files, which provides clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the conditional 'after search' gives guidance.

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