trace_parameter_usage

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

No annotations are provided; the description discloses the scope of tracing (path, query, request/response bodies), but does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains the core functionality. However, it does not specify return format or behavior for edge cases (e.g., no matches), which could be useful for completeness.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the general purpose statement; it does not elaborate on specific parameters or their usage.

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: to trace where a parameter or field is used across an API spec. The verb 'trace' and the resource 'parameter/field usage' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like call_endpoint or find_related_endpoints.

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 implies usage when tracing parameter usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided.

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