cos_graph_references

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds valuable behavioral context: raw repo paths are auto-resolved, the default 'kinds' behavior selects specific edge types per node kind, and the limit parameter caps results. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a well-organized Args section. Each parameter's documentation is dense but relevant. The 'R4-02' reference is a minor distraction but does not detract from overall structure.

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 graph tool with complex uid schemes and edge type selection, the description comprehensively covers required parameters, default behaviors, and parameter interactions. An output schema exists, so return structure is already specified and need not be repeated.

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 carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter: uid with a detailed scheme and examples, kinds with comma-separated edge types and per-node-kind defaults, and limit with a default value. This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List inbound edges — "who references this?"'. This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling graph tools like cos_graph_trace or cos_graph_impact, which focus on other aspects of graph traversal.

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?

Clear context is given: this tool is for finding who references a given node. It also explains that an empty 'kinds' parameter automatically selects appropriate edge types per node kind, offering concrete usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where another tool should be preferred.

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