trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only graph walk over derived_from edges and that it surfaces 'raw material,' but it says nothing about return shape, depth limits, cost, or idempotency — modest disclosure for an annotation-free query tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and payoff, then the usage trigger, then the sibling contrast. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 50% parameter coverage, the description does the core job of explaining purpose but leaves the `initiative` parameter's meaning and any return/edge semantics unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a two-parameter graph-traversal tool.

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 coverage is 50%: `name` is documented in the schema and merely implied by the word 'node' in the description, while `initiative` is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no format, resolution, or scoping detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: walking derived_from ancestors back to sources, framed as 'where a conclusion CAME FROM'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling verb `why`, so an agent can select between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('use it before trusting a synthesised or settled node') and names the alternative (`why` for the reasoning trail, `trace` for the material one), which effectively defines when this tool is the right pick versus its closest sibling. It stops short of stating when not to use it or prerequisite states.

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