get_call_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the tool 'exports', implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose potential limitations, performance impacts, or any side effects. The minimal description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is arguably too brief, lacking essential detail. It is concise but at the expense of completeness, scoring a middle ground.

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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description fails to clarify the overall context: what is a call graph, how does it relate to the system, or what are the prerequisites for using this tool. With three parameters and zero required, the description should at least hint at typical usage scenarios.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add details. The description's mention of 'specified format' loosely aligns with the format parameter but provides no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameters.

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 states it exports a call graph in a specified format, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'generate_mermaid_graph', which likely produces a similar output, causing potential ambiguity. The schema adds clarity but the description alone is vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_mermaid_graph'. There is no mention of preconditions, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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