get_fttx_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the tool is a read operation ('Trace') and warns about failure behavior ('NEVER fabricate data… report the error'). This is strong transparency for an unannotated tool. However, it does not mention whether the trace is recursive, what the depth limit is, or how errors manifest.

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 zero waste. The first sentence conveys the core purpose and chain, and the second adds a critical usage rule. Every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the action and target.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, enum, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral and usage aspects. The missing output schema is offset by the description implying the trace chain. The only gap is the lack of mention of error conditions (e.g., what happens if the resource is not found).

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 schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds value by stating the tool's upward-navigation purpose, which implicitly explains the role of 'resource_type' (starting point) and 'resource_id' (specific element). However, it does not elaborate on valid enum values beyond what the schema lists, nor does it explain the expected format of resource_id.

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 action ('Trace'), the target ('FTTx element'), and the direction ('upward through the hierarchy'). It also enumerates the specific chain of resources (port→box→PON→backbone), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_network_element' (which likely fetches a single element without tracing) or 'list_fttx_infrastructure' (which lists elements).

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 explicitly warns against fabricating data if the tool fails, instructing the agent to report the error instead. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_element' or 'list_fttx_infrastructure'. The upward-trace behavior implies it's for hierarchical navigation, but no direct exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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