explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists query categories and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, how the question, anchor, and relation parameters interact, or any potential side effects.

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 concise phrase with no filler or redundant information, and it front-loads the key concept. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though conciseness itself is strong.

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?

With 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too minimal. It omits the required question semantics, anchor behavior, relation default, and expected response, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 compensate by explaining the parameters. It only implicitly references the relation enum values (callers, callees, dependencies, impact, architecture overview) and says nothing about the required question parameter or the optional anchor parameter.

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 states the tool handles 'Structural questions' and lists specific topics such as callers, callees, dependencies, impact, and architecture overview, which makes its domain clear and distinguishes it from siblings like locate and search. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-plus-resource construction, so the action statement is slightly weaker.

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 that the tool should be used for structural or architectural questions by enumerating relation types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools locate, read, or search. It also lacks any exclusions or alternative guidance.

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