Finds the call chain between two symbols, such as a test or entry point and the function you are changing, and returns each hop with its file:line call site.
Find the shortest call chain from one symbol to another, e.g. from a test or entry point to the function you are changing. Returns each hop with the file:line it is called from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| target | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-shape context ('each hop with the file:line it is called from'), which is genuine value, but it omits failure behavior when no chain exists and whether traversal follows calls or references — gaps annotations do not fill.
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 sentences, zero filler: the operation and its scope come first, the return format second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
Read-only, two-parameter query with no output schema, so the description bears moderate load. It explains the result shape but not the no-path case, symbol format, or which direction the chain is walked — the last being essential for interpreting the result correctly among graph siblings.
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 schema contributes only the names 'source' and 'target'. The description compensates partially by framing them as symbols at the ends of a call chain, but leaves symbol syntax (fully-qualified name vs file:line) and directionality (which end is traversed from) unspecified.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'find the shortest call chain from one symbol to another' — which is meaningfully distinct from the one-directional siblings (callers/callees) and the blast-radius-oriented 'impact'. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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 example 'from a test or entry point to the function you are changing' supplies a concrete usage scenario, which is real guidance. However, it never states when to prefer callers/callees/impact instead, nor any precondition (e.g. symbols must already exist in the index).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.