call_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return behavior (array of the call chain, null when no path exists), which is useful, but it omits directionality (callers vs callees), how max_depth affects the search, behavior on cycles, and whether the search is exhaustive.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior following. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the parameter gaps.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the most important questions unanswered: what a and b identify, what max_depth does, and whether the path follows callers, callees, or both. The output schema covers the return shape, but the inputs remain opaque.

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%, and the description explains none of the three parameters. It implies a and b are path endpoints but never says whether they are entity IDs, names, or file paths, and max_depth is not mentioned at all.

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 path between a and b. An agent can tell it apart from list_entities or get_definition conceptually, but the description never names sibling tools like blast_radius or who_calls, so no explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as who_calls, what_calls, or blast_radius, and no mention of required preconditions (e.g. that a and b must already be indexed entities). The only usage hint is the implicit from/to framing.

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