trace_data_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses automatic multi-hop traversal, the direction semantics, and the per-node return payload (function name, instruction, code-vs-data). It doesn't cover performance/limits on large traversals, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then direction semantics, then the triggering use case, then the exclusion, then the parameter note. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy.

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 exists, yet the description describes what each traversal node returns (function name, instruction, code/data), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. For a 4-parameter read tool with no annotations, it is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds intuitive meaning to 'direction' (forward = data flows TO, backward = flows FROM) beyond the terse schema phrasing, and supplies the max_depth cap (max 20) that the schema omits. Marginal but real added value.

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 (follow/traverse) plus resource (cross-references from/to an address across multiple hops). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'callgraph' and implicitly from chained 'xrefs_to' calls, so an agent can place it without opening the 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 concrete triggering scenario ('when you find an interesting string, constant, or global') and an explicit exclusion with the escape hatch ('Do not use for call graph traversal — use callgraph for that'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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