add_multi_line_trace_by_channel_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and prerequisites. It explains the node's runtime behavior (returns array of Hit Results, more expensive) but does not state that the tool modifies the specified Blueprint, whether it returns success/failure, or if it requires a graph context. The operation's side effects are only implied by 'Add'.

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 reasonably compact, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear Args list with an example and KB pointer. The 'Ch.14' reference adds a little noise but does not significantly hurt conciseness.

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's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and provides an example. It lacks explicit usage guidance (when to use vs cheaper single trace) and prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist), leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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's Args section is essential. It lists all four parameters with meaningful details: valid enum values for trace_channel and draw_debug, optionality and format of node_position, and an example path for blueprint_name. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 names the exact node type ('Multi Line Trace By Channel') and its distinguishing behavior ('returns ALL actors hit as array'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling single-line and object-based trace nodes. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 notes the node is 'more expensive' but returns every hit, implying use when all hits are needed rather than a single trace. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., add_line_trace_by_channel_node) or state conditions to avoid this tool, leaving the guidance mostly implicit.

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