check_function_call

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool analyzes sourceFunction for references to targetFunction and frames it as a direct-call check, but it does not specify the return format, whether matches are purely syntactic, or how missing functions/files are handled.

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 sentences with no obvious filler; the first gives the purpose and the second maps it to the parameter names. It could be slightly tighter since 'defined in' repeats, but the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 is simple and all four parameters are documented, so the core invocation is understandable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of any statement about the return result (e.g., boolean true/false) and edge-case behavior leaves a real completeness gap.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by defining sourceFile/sourceFunction as the caller side and targetFile/targetFunction as the callee side, which is genuinely useful beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 a specific operation: verifying whether a caller function references a callee function, scoped to two files. It is easy to tell apart from siblings like get_references or search_in_file because it is a predicate check rather than a lookup, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus get_references, get_definition, or search_in_file. The phrase 'direct call' implies a scope restriction, but the description never tells the agent when not to use it or which alternative covers broader reference searches.

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