unknowns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares 'Read-only', explains a non-obvious behavioral guarantee ('separates proven-absent from couldn't-cross'), and warns against misreading missing facts as 'none'. It omits details like pagination behavior or result shape, but the core behavioral contract is 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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the resource, the second captures a critical semantic distinction, and the third gives usage direction. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler.

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 listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral nuance, and scoping. It lacks an explicit statement about default output format or when a scope is required, but those are minor given the schema already provides defaults and descriptions.

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 already documented. The description adds value by explaining the `function` parameter's purpose ('scope to one function'), but does not add meaning beyond the schema for limit, format, or offset. This matches the baseline for fully self-documenting schemas.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List the graph's explicit comprehension frontiers', then enumerates concrete examples (unresolved calls, dynamic/reflective runtime behavior, parser/compiler diagnostics). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like coverage_map or scan, which sound related but are not the same operation.

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 tells the agent when to call it: 'to gauge how much of an answer is trustworthy', and gives scoping guidance: 'scope to one `function` or survey the whole graph'. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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