trace_parameter_usage

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

With no annotations, the description alone must define behavior. It discloses that the tool traces across specified locations, but omits critical details such as whether it makes network requests, requires authentication, has rate limits, or can be slow. The behavior is only partially transparent.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function without verbosity. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key 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?

Despite high schema coverage, the tool has 9 parameters including nested objects and no output schema. The description is too brief given this complexity; it lacks details on output format, side effects, error handling, and performance implications, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 the schema already describes all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 where a parameter or field is used across various API spec locations (path, query, request/response bodies). It uses a specific verb ('trace') and resource ('parameter or field'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on endpoints or calls.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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