what_does_it_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the edge payload (rule, confidence, path:line) and, importantly, the non-obvious filtering behavior that low-confidence edges are silently hidden and only counted in notes. It does not describe failure modes or the 'limit' truncation behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by the output/filter contract. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence crams default, effect, and tuning into one clause.

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 return-shape explanation is not required, and the confidence-threshold semantics are covered. However, an unexplained 'limit' parameter and no mention of what happens at depth boundaries leaves gaps for a 4-parameter query 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it documents min_confidence's default (0.5), its suppression effect, and a recommended value (0.1) for ambiguous name-only matches, plus depth's 1-3 range. The 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific resource (callees of a symbol) and bounds the traversal (depth 1-3), which is a clear verb+resource statement. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling 'what_calls', so an agent must infer the direction distinction from the name alone.

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 the use case (finding what a symbol calls) but never states when to prefer this over 'what_calls' or 'explain_edge', nor any prerequisites. It does give threshold-tuning guidance for min_confidence, which is useful but is parameter advice rather than tool-routing advice.

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