Trace TIA Data Flow

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that results are 'evidence-backed' and derived from multiple artifact types. However, it does not explain why readOnlyHint=false (presumably autoBuild/index writes), nor does it warn about traversal cost or the effect of the depth/node caps, which matters for a recursive graph walk.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the evidence sources. It is efficient, though one sentence for a 7-parameter recursive tool leaves no room for structure.

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 recursive traversal tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is not sufficient. An agent knows roughly what the tool does but not how to set match/direction/maxDepth/maxNodes/autoBuild, nor what a result contains.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'where a value comes from or where it is used' loosely maps to direction upstream/downstream and 'recursively' hints at maxDepth, but match, maxNodes, autoBuild, and exportDir are never given meaning anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and object ('Recursively trace where a value comes from or where it is used') and scopes the evidence sources (SCL assignments, GRAPH actions, LAD/FBD network flows) plus the data domain (cached S7-1200/S7-1500 export). That is enough to distinguish it in spirit from tia_trace_call_graph and tia_trace_symbol, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tracing tools or how to choose between them. The only implicit signal is that a cached export must already exist ('from a cached S7-1200/S7-1500 export'), which is a prerequisite hint rather than routing guidance.

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