tentra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'annotates each hop with semantic purpose,' which adds some context about output behavior, but it lacks details on performance (e.g., computational cost, rate limits), error handling, or data mutability (e.g., whether it modifies the snapshot). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and use case without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by clearly conveying purpose and context.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and its use case, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error conditions. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full agent understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters ('from_symbol', 'to_symbol', 'snapshot_id') with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining symbol formats or snapshot constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Finds', 'annotates') and resources ('shortest call/import path between two symbols'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on path analysis rather than broader codebase operations like analysis, indexing, or architecture management.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Answers "how does X reach Y?"'), which implies it's for tracing dependencies or relationships between symbols. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'get_symbol_neighbors' for local connections or 'analyze_codebase' for broader analysis.

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