get_call_paths

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavior: pagination ('bounded page'), result ranking ('dominant'), and optional symbol filtering. It supplements the annotation-based safety profile without contradicting it.

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 with no filler or repeated schema information. Every word contributes to the core function.

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 primary return type and optional filter, and the output schema plus annotations reduce the need for return-value details. However, it omits semantics for three of four parameters and gives no broader context about the analysis_id or pagination mechanics, leaving clear gaps.

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%, and the description only explains `symbol` (optional containing symbol). It does not clarify `limit`, `cursor`, or `analysis_id`, which are left entirely to the schema. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('bounded page of dominant call paths') plus an optional filter ('containing a symbol'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling hotspot/profile analysis 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?

The description implies usage for paginated call path queries, especially when filtering by symbol, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is present but not elaborated.

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