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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: default include and format modes, that output is Markdown by default for token efficiency, and that the link graph carries edge weights and one-to-many/external links. It stops short of noting size/rate limits or truncation behavior on large projects.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the three include modes are covered in parallel order without repetition. The middle sentences are dense run-ons stacked with em-dashes, which costs a little scannability but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so for both modes plus the format switch. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 schema already names all three params, but the description materially enriches two of them: include=structure/links/both is spelled out with the concrete contents of each mode, and format is tied to a tradeoff (Markdown token-efficient vs json structured). That is meaningfully beyond the one-line schema enum text.

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?

Specific verb ('Survey a project') plus resource, and it enumerates exactly what each mode returns: the group/document/outline tree with number, ID prefix, type, status, version, counts and H1-H6 headings, or the document-to-document trace graph. This clearly separates it from siblings like traceable_doc_read (opens one document) and traceable_workspace_projects (lists projects).

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?

States the moment to use it ('before opening any document') and the decision it supports ('use it to decide what to read'), which is a clear context. It does not name a specific alternative tool or state an exclusion, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not routing a 5 requires.

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