trace_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The qualifier "verified" is a genuinely useful signal that only statically confirmed imports count, but nothing is said about failure behavior when no path exists, resolution rules, cost/latency, or what distinguishes a match from a near-miss.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so the intent lands immediately. Its brevity edges into under-specification rather than waste, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for a graph-traversal tool with zero annotations the description should still say what constitutes a valid source/target identifier and what happens on no-match. Those omissions are the main gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly the first time.

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 0% — "source" and "target" are bare string titles — so the description must do all the work. It does establish that the first parameter is a file and the second a dependency, but gives no format hints (file path vs. module specifier vs. symbol name) and never explicitly ties the words to the parameter names, leaving ambiguity about which direction is which.

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 gives a specific verb ("Trace") and resource ("import relationships") with a stated direction from a source file to a dependency, which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this from lookalike siblings such as get_dependency_chain or impact_analysis, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 phrase "from a source file to a dependency" implies the intended scenario (path-tracing between two known endpoints), giving implied rather than explicit guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_dependency_chain or impact_analysis, and no preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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