cos_graph_test_gap

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that results are heuristic ('Candidates only') and explicitly excluding shell scripts ('Shell excluded'), which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-only query.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence provides necessary information—purpose, limitations, parameter details, and return format—without redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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 read-only graph analysis tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, return envelope, and the nuance of indirect exercise. It could mention whether any prerequisites exist (e.g., graph must be pre-built), but this is not essential for basic use.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'kind: Optional filter — function | method | class. Empty = all three.' and 'top: Max returned (default 50, max 500).' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field names and types.

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: 'List prod function/method/class with zero inbound edge from any test (untested symbols).' This uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource (prod function/method/class), and a specific condition (zero inbound edge from any test), making it distinct from sibling graph tools.

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 provides context on when to use this tool by explaining that 'Candidates only: indirect exercise (CLI / fixtures / dynamic dispatch) may not appear as a graph edge. Shell excluded (no call-graph).' This clarifies the tool's limitations and interpretive caution. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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