ancestors_of

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'transitive callers' which implies recursive traversal, but does not disclose details such as whether cycles are handled, depth limits, performance implications, or what happens if the node is not found.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is underspecified rather than concise. It lacks essential details and does not earn its place as a standalone explanation.

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 annotations, zero schema coverage, and lack of output schema details, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to clarify input semantics, behavior, or return value structure, making it insufficient for an agent to use reliably.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not describe 'name' (the target node) or 'session_id' (an optional session identifier), leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 'Return transitive callers that can reach the node' uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('callers that can reach the node'), and the term 'transitive' distinguishes it from the sibling 'callers_of', which likely returns direct callers. However, it does not explicitly clarify what 'node' refers to (presumably the function named by 'name' parameter).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'callers_of' or 'callees_of'. It does not state context (e.g., call graph traversal), prerequisites, or exclusions.

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