dependency_path

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'shortest' path and 'illustrating how they are connected', but omits details about side effects, required permissions, return format, or behavior when no path exists. The description is adequate but lacks explicit read-only or mutability statements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 17 words with no redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose but is vague about the output ('illustrating how they are connected'). It fails to specify the return type (e.g., list of nodes/edges) or edge cases like disconnected nodes. Additional detail would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only clarifying that the nodes are 'files or symbols'. It does not explain path syntax or constraints, leaving parameter semantics mostly to the schema.

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 that the tool traces the shortest dependency or reference path between two files or symbols, using specific verb 'Trace' and resource 'dependency or reference path'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_callees or get_references by focusing on the path between two specific nodes.

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 understanding connections between two files or symbols, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_callees or impact_analysis. It provides clear context but no exclusions or when-not guidance.

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