trace_error

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'FTS narrows the ast-grep pass' and 'Snapshot-strict' indicate query optimization and consistency guarantees.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure for parameter explanations.

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 description covers the core functionality and behavioral traits, but misses parameter semantics and usage guidelines. Given an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the description could be more complete regarding input parameters and comparative usage.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description mentions only the 'term' parameter implicitly ('error term'), but does not explain the optional projectId and projectRef parameters, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: trace an error term across throw sites (with ast-grep patterns), catch handlers, and PL/pgSQL bodies. It clearly distinguishes from sibling trace tools (e.g., trace_edge, trace_file) by focusing on error-specific constructs.

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 implies usage for error term tracing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other trace tools (e.g., trace_edge for control flow). No 'when-not' or alternative tools are mentioned.

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