trace_concept

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

With no annotations provided, the description provides substantial behavioral detail: it returns an ordered call chain with file locations and producer/consumer roles, and includes bridge functions on the path. It does not mention side effects or safety, but the read-only nature is implied. The description goes a long way in disclosing behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 only three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first sentence states the main purpose and what it shows, second describes the return value, third provides example queries. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (ordered call chain with locations and roles). It covers the key inputs (concept, depth) and what they affect. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns, even in the context of 18 sibling tools.

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; the schema itself describes 'concept' as 'The concept to trace (e.g. "transform")' and 'max_depth' as 'Maximum call chain depth (default: 5)'. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, only mentioning 'maximum call chain depth' implicitly. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: to trace how a domain concept flows through code via function call chains. It specifies what it shows (producers, consumers, call paths, file locations, roles) and uses specific verb phrases like 'trace', 'shows', 'returns'. The name 'trace_concept' is accurately described, distinguishing it from siblings like 'trace_type' or 'type_flows'.

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 states when to use the tool: when asked about concept propagation, 'what calls what for X', or 'trace X through the code'. It implies exclusion of other sibling tools (e.g., trace_type for types) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it. Overall, clear context is provided.

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