error_path_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses the tool's limitation (transfer summaries remain separate). It does not describe the exact return shape or any potential error behavior, but the core behavioral profile 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 sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and no redundant filler. The phrase 'honest frontier' is slightly vague, and the lifecycle-graph sentence is dense, but overall every sentence contributes to purpose, usage, or limitation.

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 read-only reporting tool with only one required parameter, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it does not do. It lacks an explicit description of the response shape, but the absence of an output schema makes that a modest gap rather than a fatal one.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents function, limit, and format. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'for one function, report its exit paths (returns / error branches) and the resource-handling evidence on them.' It separates itself from flow_pass by noting that complete transfer summaries are a separate frontier and by positioning itself as companion to guards/flow_pass.

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 says exactly when to use the tool: 'Use it to see how a function leaves on its error paths.' It also gives alternatives/complements by instructing the agent to 'pair with guards and flow_pass for the interprocedural picture,' and warns that complete transfer summaries are out of scope.

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