Trace event dependencies

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying which dependency kinds are traced and that results include names and validity, plus the followCommonEvents behavior.

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 two compact sentences with no obvious waste. It front-loads the dependency types and then adds the followCommonEvents behavior, making efficient use of limited space.

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 read-only tracing tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and some return-value semantics via “with names and validity.” It still leaves the target-selection rules and the exact result structure underspecified, which matters because no parameters are required.

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 high at 83%, so most parameters are already documented by the schema. The description adds meaning for followCommonEvents by saying it traces called common events, but it does not clarify how mapId, eventId, troopId, pageIndex, and commonEventId should be combined to select the target page or common event.

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 states a specific capability: tracing IDs referenced by an event page, including switches, variables, items, actors, common events, maps, page conditions, and text codes. It clearly identifies the resource as a page and the operation as dependency tracing, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_event_flow or describe_event_page.

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?

Usage is implied by “referenced by a page,” and followCommonEvents is described as extending the trace into called common events. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated exclusions, and no alternative tool named for related dependency or flow analysis.

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