object_lifecycle

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 delivers: it declares 'Read-only' up front, clarifies the tool reports existing graph evidence rather than computing new analysis, discloses the no-arguments capability report behavior, and lists the output categories. It does not address edge cases like conflicting value+function scoping or missing nodes, but for a read-only reporting tool the disclosure is strong.

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 zero filler. The 'Read-only' safety signal is front-loaded, the core function and its output contents are in sentence one, scoping instructions in sentence two, and routing to alternatives in sentence three. Every clause earns its place.

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 no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the report contains, how to scope by value or function, the no-arg capability report, and the format default. Minor gaps remain — the contents of the capability report, behavior when both value and function are supplied, and failure behavior for unknown nodes — but nothing that would block 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the interaction semantics: value and function are alternative scoping modes, omitting both yields the capability report, and format's default is text. This relationship information is not present in the schema.

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 ('Report'), a specific resource ('lifecycle evidence the graph holds'), and a concrete scope (value or function). It enumerates exactly what the report contains — Pass 3 alloc/release/deref/alias/generation events, source-rooted coverage, and matcher leads — and explicitly names sibling tools (field_history, flow_pass) as the alternatives, making its niche unmistakable among 44 siblings.

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?

Gives explicit selection guidance: 'Give `value` or `function` to scope it; omit both for the capability report' states the argument modes, and 'Prefer `field_history` for one field's events and `flow_pass` for the composed interprocedural summary' names the alternatives and the conditions that select them. No inference is required from the agent.

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