trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait beyond the schema: the result is a truncated ranking that keeps only the per_level entries with the lowest EU/t at each layer, and that output is a text tree. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, any limits/rate constraints, or how deep the traversal truly goes.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the direction semantics plus the per-level ranking rule are front-loaded. Given six parameters and no supporting schema descriptions, it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but as a conciseness measure it wastes nothing.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage over 6 parameters means the description is the only source of truth, and it only covers direction and per_level. The roles of include_all and exclude_types, the meaning of depth, and the actual shape of the returned text tree are all missing, so an agent cannot call this reliably without guessing.

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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It usefully supplies the otherwise-missing values for direction (up/down) and explains per_level's selection rule, but item, depth, include_all, and exclude_types are left entirely undocumented, leaving a majority of parameters opaque.

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 resource: it expands a text tree of an item's upstream producers/inputs or downstream consumers/outputs. It is concrete about the traversal direction and ranking rule, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like producers, consumers, or machines_for, which sound like they cover related ground.

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?

Usage is implied through the inline definitions of direction: up = who produces it / what it needs, down = who consumes it / what it produces. This tells the agent which direction to pick for a given question. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the overlapping siblings (producers, consumers, machines_for), and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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