analyze_call_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it mentions outputs, it omits details about performance impact, destructive potential, or prerequisites. The tool creates a call graph but does not specify if it modifies files or has side effects.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope, the second lists key outputs. No redundant or unnecessary words; front-loaded with essential information.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately states purpose and outputs but lacks details on return format, execution time, or prerequisites. Without output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes function call patterns, method invocations, and code relationships specifically in TypeScript/JavaScript files. It lists concrete outputs like call graph, complexity metrics, and recursion detection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_architecture or analyze_document.

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 analyzing call patterns in TS/JS, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for other languages) or suggest alternatives among sibling tools. Usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions.

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