trace_dependencies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds some behavioral context: traversal is outward, depth-bounded, and can return a route to a named symbol. It does not disclose cycle handling, response shape, performance characteristics, or failure modes, so the disclosure remains minimal but not contradictory.

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 short and front-loaded with the core behavior, but the grammar is awkward and incomplete ('Pass to for the route...'), which hurts readability. Each sentence contributes something, but the overall structure is fragmented rather than cleanly specifying behavior, parameters, and alternatives.

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?

For a tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description covers only the basic notion of outward traversal and a single routing parameter. An agent would struggle to know what `edge_kinds`, `stable_key`, `view`, `cursor`, or `response_format` control, and what the tool returns. The definition is far from complete.

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%, and the tool has 17 parameters. The description meaningfully explains only `depth` and `to`; the remaining 15 parameters such as `edge_kinds`, `max_nodes`, `stable_key`, `confidence`, and `response_format` receive no guidance. This is far too little semantic support for an API of this size.

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 communicates that the tool traces what a symbol reaches outward, bounded by depth, which identifies it as a transitive dependency tracer. It also explains that passing `to` yields the route to one named symbol. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_references or get_blast_radius, and the phrasing is elliptical.

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 line 'Grep does not follow a chain' gives a hint that this tool should be used when transitive or multi-hop dependency chains are needed, rather than simple text search. But it does not mention when to prefer or avoid sibling tools such as find_references or get_blast_radius, leaving most usage decisions implicit.

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