get_logic_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions tracing and finding dependencies/usage, which suggests a read-only analysis operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, has side effects, requires permissions, or details output format (e.g., graph structure, depth limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that traces call graphs. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), output format, or how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand usage without additional context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'start_node'. The description adds context by specifying it traces 'dependencies and usage of a function or class', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's already covered.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('traces', 'find') and resources ('call graph', 'dependencies and usage', 'function or class'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'analyze_impact', which might have overlapping or related functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'analyze_impact' or any alternatives. It implies usage for tracing dependencies and usage, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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