query_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which clearly indicate the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, but does not contradict them. Since annotations carry the transparency burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a concrete usage example. It is well front-loaded and efficient.

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 read-only query tool with three parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the functionality and gives a practical hint. However, it does not describe the return format, which could be useful for an agent. Still, it is mostly complete.

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% with all three parameters described. The description adds a helpful hint about using query_type='symbols' to list all functions, but otherwise adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct given high schema coverage.

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 queries a function-level call graph for callers, callees, tests, dependents, or symbols. It uses specific verbs (Query, Find) and identifies a specific resource (function-level call graph). Among sibling tools, none appear to offer similar call graph functionality, so it is well-distinguished.

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 call graph queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_code or get_signature. It provides query type options but no when-not or exclusions. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent selecting among siblings.

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