trace_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions that results include USAGE references, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, what happens if the function is not uniquely resolved, or what the output looks like.

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 short sentences with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the primary action. It is arguably too terse for an 11-parameter graph-tracing tool, but the conciseness itself is effective.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly beyond the required function_name. It omits all parameter semantics and most behavioral context needed for tracing modes, direction, depth, and detail.

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% for 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at function/method resolution and USAGE references, leaving mode, depth, detail, project, direction, edge_types, risk_labels, include_tests, parameter_name, and qualified_name entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Trace a uniquely resolved function or method.' It also adds that results include USAGE references for callbacks and functions passed as values. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as query_graph or search_graph, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explain when to use trace_path versus alternatives such as query_graph, search_graph, or get_code_snippet. It implies that this is for tracing resolved functions and callback usage, but gives no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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