build_flow_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only labels the tool as 'EXPERIMENTAL heuristic', which hints at unreliability but does not describe side effects, return behavior, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool that might have complex outputs.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and subject, making it easy to parse. However, it is minimal to the point of missing critical details, which slightly lowers the score.

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 provides only a high-level purpose and fails to explain the parameter, expected output, or any operational context. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is severely incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. There is no explanation of what 'path' should point to or its format, leaving the agent completely uninformed about the only required input.

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 tool builds a data-flow risk map for source and sink patterns, using a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling audit tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus others, nor any exclusions or alternative tools. The single-sentence description offers no contextual triggers or prerequisites.

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