cerebro_calls

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and lists only name-resolved internal calls. No contradictions; behavior is well disclosed for a simple listing tool.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with the verb 'List', no redundant information. Every word is 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's simple nature (one parameter, list function), the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention expected file types or error conditions, but is adequate for 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 coverage is 0%, and description does not directly explain the 'path' parameter. Although the context implies path is a file, no details about format, accepted paths, or restrictions are given.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists internal function/method calls for a file (outgoing call edges), and explicitly excludes external library calls. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerebro_callers (likely incoming) and cerebro_map.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations. The description implies use when internal call edges are needed, and not when external calls are desired, but does not name specific sibling tools for that case.

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