trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'role and subsystem annotations' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the tool returns (e.g., a path list, visualization), error handling, performance considerations, or if it modifies data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Follow directed flow'). It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the output or use case.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a trace result, annotations details), error conditions, or how it integrates with the system. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex tracing functionality, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying parameters are used for tracing flows with annotations, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'follow[s] directed flow from node A to node B with role and subsystem annotations,' which clarifies it traces a path between nodes in a system. However, it's vague about what 'directed flow' entails (e.g., data flow, control flow) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'between' or 'distance,' which might have similar functions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for tracing flows with annotations, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'between' or 'distance' that might handle related tasks.

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