marm_graph_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the cross_service limitation that an empty result means 'unknown' and defines evidence strategies and confidence levels so guessed edges are transparently distinguishable. Error behavior for an unavailable graph backend is also explicitly documented.

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 prepended emoji and short purpose line front-load the key operation. Parameters are grouped in a compact bullet-style list, and each sentence adds either setup, a limitation, or parameter behavior. It is information-dense without being bloated for a tool with 8 parameters.

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?

The description is thorough for a complex tool with no output schema or annotations: it covers behavioral caveats, direction/mode choices, evidence semantics, and backend failure. The main gap is that the return value is only described as a generic 'graph trace response', and it doesn't define the result graph shape or edge fields. Still, this is quite complete for an agent's invocation needs.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description covers all 8 parameters with meaningful semantics. It adds constraints like depth 1-5, auto-resolution for project, direction/mode meanings, risk-label behavior, and evidence strategy values. This fully compensates for the bare 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 starts with a specific action: 'Trace call paths / data flow through the graph from a function,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also lists concrete use cases ('impact analysis, dependency tracing, who calls this') that help orient an agent. The only slight overlap with the sibling marm_graph_impact is minor because this tool centers on graph traversal from a function.

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 gives actionable direction/mode guidance (inbound vs outbound vs data_flow vs cross_service) and states 'Use for impact analysis, dependency tracing, who calls this.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, nor name alternatives like marm_graph_impact, marm_code_lookup, or marm_graph_architecture. Clear context exists, but exclusion/alternative guidance is missing.

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