graph.trace_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states it 'returns' the call chain. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the structure of the output, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is overly concise, lacking necessary elaboration. It earns its place but sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 the tool has an output schema and two required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values or provide enough context for correct usage. The lack of behavioral detail and parameter guidance makes it insufficient for a well-informed tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'direction: inbound or outbound' but does not explain what these mean, nor does it define 'symbol_name'. The description adds very little meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 returns the inbound or outbound call chain for a given symbol, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('call chain'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like graph.get_architecture and graph.get_symbol, which have different purposes.

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 mentions the direction parameter with 'inbound' or 'outbound' values, implying usage, but does not explain when to use each direction or when to choose this tool over siblings. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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