call_path

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

The phrase 'from an entry point down' discloses a directional traversal behavior, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not state output format, ordering, error behavior, or whether the result is a single path or multiple paths.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core idea and is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and closely related sibling tools, the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how it relates to callers/callees, or when this tool should be preferred.

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 procedure parameter is already documented with an example. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, but it does frame the parameter in the context of an entry-point-to-procedure path, which is a mild semantic contribution.

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 conveys that the tool traces how execution reaches a procedure via an entry point, which is a recognizable purpose. However, it lacks a concrete verb such as 'list' or 'return', and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like callers, callees, or provenance.

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 gives no guidance on when to use call_path versus the closely related sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or use-case context, leaving the agent to infer the tool's niche from its name and vague purpose.

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