Build cross-script graph

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'infer' aligns with a read-only operation. The description adds context about the method (exact runtime constants and unique string evidence) and output characteristic (confidence on every edge), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error behaviors, performance impacts, or irreversibility, so it only moderately enhances transparency.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler or redundant text. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately conveys the tool's unique approach. Every phrase contributes value, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 three parameters but no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., how the graph is represented, what 'confidence on every edge' means concretely). The description also omits how maxScripts and maxClosureDepth affect behavior. Given the complexity of graph inference, a single sentence is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 only 33% (only 'clientId' has a schema description). The tool description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters, including the meaning of 'maxScripts' and 'maxClosureDepth'. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the semantics of key parameters underspecified.

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 verb ('infer') and resource ('cross-script dependency graph'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_scripts or analyze_script. The mention of 'exact runtime Instance constants and unique string evidence' adds methodological specificity, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 scenarios: whenever a cross-script dependency graph is needed, this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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