Get unified symbol graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the graph is 'bounded' and 'local' and mentioning trace paths and blast-radius analysis, but it does not explain how bounds work or what resource costs might be incurred.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and scope. Every clause adds meaningful information about graph contents or capabilities, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 13 parameters and an output schema, the description gives a solid high-level overview of what the graph contains and what analysis is available. However, it does not address how it complements or overlaps with sibling tools like get_call_graph or analyze_impact, and it leaves relationship-selection and trace-direction behavior to the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The prose references trace paths and edge kinds that map to trace_from/trace_to and edge_kinds, but it does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and names a clear resource ('bounded local symbol-level graph'), then enumerates the graph's contents: modules, definitions, imports, references, calls, inheritance, tests, routes, events, and DI signals. It is clearly distinct from narrower siblings like get_call_graph and get_dependency_graph, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling routing. The word 'unified' and the large list of edge kinds imply this tool is for broad, cross-cutting symbol-graph and blast-radius exploration, but an agent is left to infer that a call-only or dependency-only graph should go elsewhere.

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