trace_request_to_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the output (initiator stack frames and code candidates) but does not disclose potential behaviors like failure modes, required state (captured request), or side effects. Given the annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no wasted verbiage. It loses a point because it may be too terse given the tool's complexity, but conciseness itself is strong.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what inputs are needed, what the output looks like, or when to choose this tool over siblings. The description is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (files, reqid, targetPageIdx, parameterNames). There is no parameter documentation in the schema either, so the agent has no guidance on how to fill these fields. The description mentions 'captured network request' but never connects that to reqid or other parameters.

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's purpose: tracing a captured network request to initiator stack frames and static code candidates. It uses a specific verb ('trace') and identifies the resource and expected outputs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as network_request or locate_candidate_functions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a previously captured request or reqid), nor does it contrast with similar tools like analyze_source_maps or search_in_scripts. Usage context is merely implied by the name and description.

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