trace_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does a solid job: it reveals that the tool is a read/analysis operation that returns locations and precedence outcomes. It does not discuss edge cases or failure modes, but it clearly communicates the core observable behavior and that it is non-mutating.

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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes meaning: what is listed, where it is searched, and what result is produced.

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 core purpose is clear, but the definition is incomplete for reliable invocation: there is no output schema, no annotations, no guidance on files/projectRoot semantics, and no differentiation from sibling tools. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or guess to use it 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%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'variable' is the trace target, but it gives no meaning for 'files' or 'projectRoot'—what files should contain, whether they are required, or how projectRoot changes discovery. This is a significant gap for a schema with no inline descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists'), names the resource (variable definitions/reads), and defines scope across dotenv, compose, k8s, and code. It also conveys a distinct deliverable ('what wins in each discovered environment/service/workload context'), which separates it from siblings like resolve_variable or diff_environments.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this is the tool to use when all definition/read locations and precedence are needed. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternative tools, leaving the agent to reason from sibling names.

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