trace_property

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it traces properties across files, groups competing rules, and shows winners. It implies a read-only analysis. It could mention file type restrictions or performance notes, but the existing detail is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentences: the first explains functionality succinctly, the second gives use cases. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and input requirements. It details what the tool does with the input (grouping, showing winners). It could briefly describe the output format, but it is mostly complete for a read-only analysis tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that files are provided and property is traced. It does not elaborate on the optional projectRoot parameter or provide examples.

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 specific verbs ('traces', 'finding', 'grouping', 'showing') and clearly identifies the resource ('CSS property across all provided files'). It details the outcome (every rule, competing rules grouped, winner shown) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'resolve_styles' by focusing on properties vs. general styling.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to understand the blast radius of a property before changing it, or to find out why a property value isn't applying as expected.' It does not provide negative use cases or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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