indirect_targets

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits beyond the operation itself: unresolved sites are kept visible and confidence is reported. It does not state whether the operation is strictly read-only or describe how confidence is represented.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the target kinds, the scope, and the most important output behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain output shape, pagination, confidence semantics, or target_offset. This is not enough for an agent to call it correctly without additional investigation.

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 only 20%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It obliquely maps 'function' to the scope, but it leaves target_offset, limit, offset, and function-reference format largely unexplained. For five parameters, more compensation is needed from the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a concrete resource ('function-pointer, callback, ops-table, and runtime dispatch sites'), and a clear scope ('inside a function'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings such as callers, callees, or candidates without needing to open the schema.

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 description implies its use: when indirect dispatch targets inside a function need resolving. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over similar siblings like candidates, callers, or flow, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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