explain_edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose that the answer is rule-based inference with an associated confidence and evidence – useful context implying the edge may be heuristic rather than ground truth. It does not explicitly confirm this is a non-mutating read or describe any limits, so it goes beyond the name but stays thin.

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, and the subject ('Why citegraph believes') comes first. The fragmentary phrasing is dense rather than wasteful, though slightly awkward to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, and the parameter direction is covered. However, with zero schema coverage for parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent short on usage context and confirmation of read-only behavior.

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% and the parameters only carry bare titles, so the description is the sole source of meaning. It conveys the directionality – from_symbol is the caller, to_symbol the callee – which the titles alone do not make unambiguous, but it adds no format or qualification details.

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 and resource: it explains why the graph believes a call edge exists from one symbol to another, listing the supporting fields (rule, meaning, confidence, evidence). This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like what_calls and get_symbol, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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, no mention of when an agent should reach for explain_edge instead of what_calls or what_does_it_call, and no prerequisites. The diagnostic intent is only implied by the word 'Why'.

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