Build call graph / function tree (IDA call graph)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the BFS recursion over getprotos, the flattened return shape with parentIndex/depth, per-node proto/upvalue counts and source/line, and the fact that depth and node count are capped. It also names prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target) and that it produces an operation-receipt.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and use cases in the opening sentences, then the operational metadata. There is minor redundancy where 'idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only' repeat the annotation hints, keeping it from a 5, but overall tight and well ordered.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: flattened node list with parentIndex/depth for reconstruction, plus per-node proto/upvalue counts and source/line. Behavior, prerequisites, safety, and return shape are all present for a medium-cost read-only analysis tool.

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 the baseline is 3; the description lifts above it by giving a concrete resolution example for functionPath ('getrenv().game.PlayerScripts.Main.someFunc' or a global) and restating that depth/node-count are capped. It does not add anything for maxDepth defaults or threadContext beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb+resource ('Build an IDA-style call graph (function tree) rooted at a target Luau function') and immediately scopes it with the mechanism (recursing through getprotos breadth-first). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get-function-protos or get-closure-protos, which are point lookups rather than a rooted tree walk.

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?

Explicitly gives use cases: 'understand how a closure fans out into helpers, spot deeply nested logic, and pick disassembly targets.' That is clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to prefer in other situations (e.g. get-function-protos for a single level), so no explicit exclusion routing.

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