code_graph_explain

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by enumerating the output components and giving symbol format examples. The 'Read-only' note reinforces the annotation accurately. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful behavior context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It lists expected output, clarifies symbol naming, and notes the read-only property without redundancy. No irrelevant or repeated information beyond the safety hint, which is minimal.

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 states what will be returned and how to specify `symbol`, but does not explain `app_id` or `db_path`, and offers no guidance on prerequisites or when this tool should be selected over closely related sibling tools. There is no output schema, so more explicit information about return structure or error behavior would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for all parameters. It does explain the `symbol` parameter well with format and examples, but `app_id` and `db_path` are completely undocumented. Since two of three parameters lack any semantic guidance, the description only partially compensates for the schema's gap.

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 the action ('Explain a symbol') and the resource, specifying that it returns the signature, file location, and inbound/outbound edges. It is easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like code_graph_walk or code_graph_search beyond the output details.

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 an appropriate use case: to explain a symbol by getting its signature, location, callers, and callees. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related code_graph siblings, nor does it mention exclusion criteria.

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