Lumino

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions correlation methods (labels, annotations, artifact references) and return content (pipeline flow, artifacts, bottlenecks, summary), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling for this complex tracing operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics and return overview. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like performance implications of 'deep' tracing or authentication requirements.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 8 parameters, including valid values for 'trace_type' and 'trace_depth', default values, and behavioral implications like 'skips auto-detection' for namespaces.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('trace') and resource ('logical operation as it flows through pipelines'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on correlation across pipelines rather than single-pipeline analysis like 'find_pipeline' or 'list_pipelineruns'.

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 tracing operations through pipelines but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_pipeline' or 'list_pipelineruns', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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