callgraph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the traversal strategy (breadth-first) and the two traversal directions, which is useful, but says nothing about cost, size limits despite a max_nodes default of 150, or what a call graph result looks like. Significant gaps for a graph-expansion 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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded with the core operation and the key enum-like choice. Efficient, though the telegram style (missing articles/verbs) costs a little readability without adding 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this definition is far too thin. Depth, build, and max_nodes semantics and the notion of traversal limits are all left for the agent to guess.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only clarifies the direction values (callees/callers) and implicitly the addr target; build, depth, and max_nodes are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific operation (breadth-first call graph) scoped to a function, which is a distinct resource from siblings like xrefs_to or function_info. It stops short of naming those siblings or clarifying how the result differs from a plain cross-reference listing.

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?

Only hint at usage is the 'direction: callees | callers' note, which reads as parameter documentation rather than a when-to-use condition. No guidance on when to pick this over xrefs_to, function_info, or disassemble, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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