get_data_flow

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently describes the tool's behavior: it traces data flows, returns per-chain details and allEndpoints, and handles ambiguity. It implies a read-only, idempotent operation. No destructive or side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a trace tool.

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 paragraph of three sentences, efficiently covering purpose, behavior, and ambiguity handling. It front-loads the main action. While it could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullet points), it is concise and contains no unnecessary words.

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 complexity of a data flow tracing tool and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is traced, what is returned (per-chain details with render path, allEndpoints), and how the 'depth' parameter works. It does not detail exact output structure but gives a solid high-level understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any new information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The schema descriptions for 'name', 'file', and 'depth' are repeated verbatim in the description, providing no extra semantic value.

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 verb 'Trace' and the resource 'full data path from a component... to API endpoints'. It specifies what is included (child components, store-mediated flows) and how ambiguity is handled (returns ambiguous with candidates). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'verify_data_flow'.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for tracing data flows, including child and store-mediated flows) and how to handle ambiguous matches (re-call with 'file'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like 'verify_data_flow'.

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