turingmind_get_related_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes what it does (find callers, callees, imports) but omits details like return format, side effects, or authorization needs. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words; every phrase adds value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and key capabilities, but with no output schema, it misses the return structure. It is adequate for a straightforward tool but leaves some gaps for deeper understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds context about the relationship graph and impact analysis, but does not enrich individual parameter meanings beyond what is in 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 it gets related code entities for a function/class/file using a relationship graph, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like turingmind_get_impacted_nodes, which may overlap.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It mentions 'impact analysis' but doesn't contrast with other tools or specify prerequisites, making it hard for an agent to decide between alternatives.

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