Traverses import and inheritance edges from a symbol to gather code context within a token budget.
BFS from an anchor symbol along import + inherit edges, collecting context
until a token budget is hit. Deterministic (alphabetical within each hop).
anchor: symbol name or fqn. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| anchor | Yes | ||
| app_id | Yes | ||
| db_path | No | ||
| hop_depth | No | ||
| max_tokens | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses deterministic ordering (alphabetical within each hop) and the token-budget stopping condition. This adds meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention any output shape or side effects, but for a read-only graph walk the annotation covers the main safety profile.
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-load the algorithm and include a useful parameter clarification. The final 'Read-only.' is somewhat redundant with the annotation, but the overall size is appropriate and focused.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the returned context looks like or how the token budget affects the result. It also omits semantics for the required app_id and optional db_path parameters. A graph-walk tool with this complexity needs more detail to be successfully invoked.
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?
With schema_description_coverage at 0%, all parameter semantics must come from the description, but only anchor is explained ('symbol name or fqn'). app_id, db_path, hop_depth, and max_tokens are left to inference from their names, and app_id/db_path remain ambiguous.
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: BFS traversal from an anchor symbol along import and inherit edges until a token budget is reached. The verb+resource (BFS walk on code graph) is specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling code graph tools like code_graph_explain or code_graph_impact.
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 guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over its siblings (code_graph_explain, code_graph_search, code_graph_impact, etc.). The intended use case is implied by the BFS description, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.