db_data_flow_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'traces' DB-related flow. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the structure of the output (though output schema exists), any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. The description is too terse to provide meaningful behavioral insight.

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, front-loaded sentence with 8 words. It is extremely concise with no filler. However, the brevity may come at the cost of missing critical guidance for a 6-parameter tool.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools with similar scope, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what constitutes 'DB-related' flow, how to effectively use the filtering parameters, or how the tool relates to similar tools like 'db_impact_preview'. The output schema exists but the description still lacks sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it does not explain how 'scenario_tag', 'scenario_name', and 'node_id' interrelate or how 'limit' affects results. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Trace' and resource 'DB-related variable/call/assertion flow in selected scenarios'. It specifies the domain (database) and type of flow (variable, call, assertion). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'variable_data_flow_trace' which likely traces non-DB flows, leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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 like 'variable_data_flow_trace' or 'db_assertion_map'. There is no mention of prerequisites, recommended parameter combinations, or scenarios where the tool is not applicable.

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