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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what each mode yields ('what to revisit when it changes', 'what they rest on'), but never states that this is a non-mutating read, nor anything about permissions, rate limits, or result size — leaving the safety profile to inference from the word 'trace'/'list'.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the two branching behaviors. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter, zero-required, read-oriented tool with an output schema (which handles return-value documentation), the description covers both call modes adequately. The remaining gap is only the unmentioned `workspace` scoping and the lack of differentiation from sibling decision tools.

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 schema already defines both parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds functional meaning to `truth` (its role in finding dependents worth revisiting) but says nothing about `workspace` scoping beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('trace') and resource ('decisions'), and its two operating modes are concrete: dependents-of-a-truth vs. recent-decisions listing. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as wyrm_decision_downstream, wyrm_decision_upstream, or wyrm_decided_because, which an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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 gives clear conditional guidance for both invocation paths: pass `truth` to find items to revisit, pass nothing to list recent decisions. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to the seemingly overlapping decision-graph siblings, so the routing is clear but incomplete.

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