codetopo_descendantsWalk a code graph from a starting node to list all nodes transitively reachable through call and import edges.
Nodes transitively reachable from a node over calls and imports edges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node id to walk down from. | |
| limit | No | Maximum members to return. Default 20. | |
| expand | No | Return full node objects instead of ids. Default false. | |
| db_path | Yes | Path to the index database. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by specifying that traversal follows calls and imports edges, but it omits traversal semantics such as cycle handling, whether the start node is included, or ordering.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries information about what is returned and which edges are traversed.
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?
The schema covers parameters and return-format toggling via expand, and annotations cover safety, so the core is present. However, for a traversal tool sitting among ancestors, blast_radius, neighborhood, and path siblings, the description omits the routing guidance an agent needs and says nothing about cycles or result scope.
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 100%, so node, limit, expand, and db_path are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a specific verb-like result ('nodes transitively reachable from a node') plus the exact edge types traversed ('calls and imports'), so an agent knows this is a downward graph walk. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings (codetopo_ancestors, codetopo_blast_radius, codetopo_neighborhood), so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like codetopo_ancestors (inverse direction), codetopo_blast_radius, codetopo_neighborhood, and codetopo_path, the agent is given no condition for selecting this tool over those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.