trace_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the three modes and their focus (e.g., data_flow includes arg expressions, cross_service uses Route nodes). However, it does not disclose performance characteristics, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the graph traversal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and mode details. Every part is essential.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify output format, how direction affects results, or how edge_types is used. Given the complexity, more detail is needed for complete understanding.

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 only 44%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the modes. For example, it doesn't explain 'direction', 'depth', or 'edge_types' in the description, leaving the agent to rely solely on the sparse schema. The description should add more context for low-coverage parameters.

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: 'Trace paths through the code graph'. It lists three modes (calls, data_flow, cross_service) and explicitly distinguishes from grep, making the purpose 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 explicitly says 'Use INSTEAD OF grep for callers, dependencies, impact analysis, or data flow tracing', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it doesn't compare against sibling tools like search_graph or get_architecture.

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