tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions BFS traversal and efficiency gains, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. The description provides some context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first explains the core functionality and scope, the second provides the efficiency rationale. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it clearly states the purpose and efficiency benefit, it lacks information about output format, error handling, performance characteristics, and when to use versus siblings. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral aspects remain underspecified.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 performs BFS graph traversal from a symbol, specifying the types of relationships explored (calls, imports, inheritance) and the efficiency benefit (eliminates 20+ file reads). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on symbol-level graph traversal rather than broader codebase analysis 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 implies usage for exploring symbol relationships efficiently, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_symbols' or 'explain_code_path'. The efficiency claim suggests it's preferred over manual file reads, but no direct sibling comparisons are provided.

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