trace_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It doesn't describe what 'trace' produces (list of ancestors? descendants? both?), whether it's a read-only operation, or how deep the trace goes by default. The 'from the index' phrase hints at read-only index lookup but adds little.

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 with no waste. However, it's under-specified for a tool with this many siblings, so the brevity isn't serving clarity - it's efficient but insufficiently informative.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal context. For a tool that traces inheritance, it doesn't clarify depth semantics, repository scoping, or output format, leaving an agent guessing about behavior and return values.

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 only 33% (only 'symbol' has a description). The description mentions 'symbols' and 'inheritance' but doesn't explain semantics of 'depth' or 'repository' beyond what the schema types convey. With 67% of parameters undocumented in the schema, the description fails to compensate.

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 states 'Trace widget/class inheritance and related symbols from the index' - a specific verb with resource and clear scope. It distinguishes from siblings like search_source, find_widget, and explain_widget by emphasizing inheritance tracing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_widget, search_source, or explain_widget. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided about when inheritance tracing is the appropriate choice.

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