function.ssa_var_def_use

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but fails to mention whether it requires completed analysis, has side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 of four words, which is under-specification rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the description is too sparse to be helpful. It wastes the opportunity to convey essential information about return format or parameter usage.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (5 parameters, SSA analysis context), the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (definition site? list of uses? actual values?), how versions work, or what level options mean. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 tool description provides absolutely no explanation of the five parameters (level, version, session_id, variable_name, function_start). An agent has no guidance on what these mean, how they relate to the SSA variable concept, or how to construct valid inputs. This is completely inadequate.

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 'Get SSA variable definition and uses' clearly indicates the tool retrieves the definition and all uses of an SSA variable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like function.var_refs (non-SSA) and function.ssa_memory_def_use (memory-related) through the specific 'SSA variable' wording. However, it could be more explicit about what exactly 'definition and uses' entails (e.g., location and data flow).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as function.var_refs or function.ssa_memory_def_use. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when this is the appropriate choice. The usage must be inferred solely from the tool name and siblings.

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