route_trace

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

The description states it 'trace[s] a route,' consistent with the readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations. It adds context about matching files and nearby evidence, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentence, concise but slightly vague. It front-loads 'Answer tool for route questions,' which is helpful but lacks structure.

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?

With 3 parameters (0% schema coverage) and an output schema present, the description is too brief. It omits parameter details and does not leverage the output schema context.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention projectId, projectRef, or route at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 is an 'Answer tool for route questions' that 'trace a route to the indexed handler, matching files, and nearby evidence.' It specifies the verb (trace) and resource (route), but does not differentiate from siblings like route_context or trace_edge, which also deal with routes.

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 only says 'Answer tool for route questions,' implying its use for route-related queries. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like route_context or trace_* tools, nor does it mention 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.