whoTriggers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'reverse-BFS' as the algorithm, which indicates a read-only traversal. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications, authentication needs, or other side effects. Without annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as it explains the operation but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and provide a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity (reverse tracing) and the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns conceptually ('entry points'). It could be more complete by specifying output format or structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the purpose.

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% and the schema already documents the parameter well with examples. The description does not add significant additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is correct.

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's a reverse trace tool that finds entry points calling a given function, with a concrete example ('what endpoints write to the order table?'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like findCallers (forward trace) by explicitly using 'reverse' and 'reverse-BFS'.

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 provides a clear use case scenario and implies when to use it (to trace callers upstream). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation.

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