marm_graph_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a graph trace response or a graph-unavailable error if the backend is disabled/failed. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond being a read operation.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then breaks down parameters in a list-like format. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, using emojis for visual guidance.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters, return types, and error conditions. However, it could better differentiate from sibling graph tools like marm_graph_architecture and marm_graph_impact, and mention prerequisites like the graph index.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains all six parameters in detail: function_name, project, direction, depth, mode, risk_labels. For example, it clarifies that mode=data_flow follows value propagation and cross_service crosses boundaries, and depth has a range 1-5. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 traces call paths/data flow through the graph from a function. It specifies directions and modes, and explicitly mentions use cases like impact analysis, dependency tracing, and 'who calls this'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like marm_graph_architecture and marm_graph_impact.

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 explains when to use each direction (inbound/outbound/both) and mode (calls/data_flow/cross_service). It also advises omitting project to auto-resolve. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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