component_boundary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it declares 'Read-only', specifies both directions, lists the covered reference types, and names the output fields (confidence, file:line). It does not discuss pagination, limits, or potential performance cost, but the core safety and return behavior are clearly disclosed.

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 tight, purposeful sentences. The read-only safety signal is front-loaded, the primary capability and output are stated immediately, and the sibling alternative is given in one clause with no wasted words.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, directionality, output contents, component semantics, and the main alternative. It could go slightly deeper on how limit/offset interact or what 'both directions' means for the from/to parameters, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct 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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context by defining components as path prefixes and giving an example, but this largely reinforces the existing schema descriptions rather than providing significant new parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names exactly what is returned: every call, callback, and type reference crossing between two path components, in both directions, with confidence and file:line. It clearly differentiates from the sibling cross_boundary_paths by noting that sibling adds rarity ranking.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to audit the contract between two modules/dirs, and identifies cross_boundary_paths as the alternative when rarity ranking is needed. This is strong, direct usage guidance that an agent can act on.

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