emit_actor_effect_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal meaningful traversal semantics: reachability via Send/Await/Spawn, supervisor edges, and transitive tool effects. It does not, however, state whether the operation is read-only, how the graph is represented or emitted, or whether the traversal can be expensive or unbounded.

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?

A single, dense sentence contains all necessary conceptual content: the operation, the root condition, and the edge types traversed. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 annotations, the description should clarify what the emitted graph looks like or at least what format it takes. It gives strong coverage of traversal semantics but leaves the result representation unstated. This is acceptable for simple tools, but this graph traversal tool would benefit from a bit more completeness.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, describing 'file' as a Path to a .hird source file and 'actor_name' as the root actor's name. The description adds the interpretive context that actor_name is the root of the graph traversal, but does not need to compensate for any schema gap, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Emit'), a specific resource ('actor/effect graph'), and a clear boundary ('rooted at an actor'). It spells out exactly what edges are included: reachable actors via Send/Await/Spawn, supervisor relationships, and transitive tool effects. This distinguishes it well from sibling tool names like explain_actor_protocol or explain_effect_row.

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: when you need the reachable actor/effect graph from a root actor. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as explain_actor_protocol or get_context_for_symbol, nor does it state any exclusion conditions. The guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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