traceBusinessFlow

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool parses function bodies to return a call graph, critical operations, and a diagram, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential performance impacts or limitations.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function and outputs, the second adds key features (fuzzy matching, Chinese keywords). Every word adds value.

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 explains the three return components (call graph, critical ops, diagram). The single parameter is well-documented, and special capabilities (fuzzy matching, Chinese support) are mentioned. No obvious gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'entryPoint'. The description adds concrete examples ('handleLogin', '支付', 'createOrder') and explains that it supports fuzzy matching and Chinese keywords, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 it traces the complete business flow chain from an entry point, specifying the outputs (call graph, critical operations, Mermaid diagram). It distinguishes from siblings like 'findCallers' and 'generateFlowDiagram' by focusing on comprehensive flow tracing with fuzzy matching and Chinese keyword support.

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 tells the user to provide an entry point and mentions fuzzy matching and Chinese keywords, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when needing a complete flow vs just callers) or when not to use it.

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