aliases

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 clearly states 'Read-only' and discloses that the response carries 'the alias set with path evidence,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It could add more edge-case or authorization detail, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences, all informative. 'Read-only' is front-loaded for safety, and the differentiating sibling relationships are stated without padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still provides enough context: purpose, usage, relation to siblings, and a summary of the response contents. It could mention format-specific behavior or path-evidence semantics, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly with the given information.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond referring to 'this one,' so it does not need to compensate for gaps.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Return the values that alias this one.' It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by contrasting it with `points_to` (objects a value points to) and `flow` (where a value goes), so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to find every name for the same object before reasoning about a mutation.' It also names complementary alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of them.

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