rails_lens_trace_callback_chain

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, but does not contradict annotations. A score of 3 is appropriate as minimal value is added.

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 extremely short (one phrase), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is not front-loaded with key details; it merely restates the tool's name.

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 complexity of tracing callback chains and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the trace reveals (e.g., order, dependencies). It lacks completeness for a tool with two required parameters and no parameter documentation.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for model_name or lifecycle_event. The description does not clarify these parameters (e.g., what 'lifecycle_event' values are valid), failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'コールバック連鎖トレース' (Callback chain trace) is essentially a translation of the tool name, providing no specific verb or resource. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like rails_lens_data_flow or rails_lens_dependency_graph, which could also involve tracing.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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