trace_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavioral scope well: it is an 'enriched' cross-layer trace that produces multiple categories of results, and it contrasts its heavier behavior with a lightweight sibling. It stops short of explicitly stating whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a trace/lookup tool the risk is low and the added context is substantial.

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 three short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the core behavior and output scope, and the next two provide differentiation and usage direction. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description's enumeration of return categories is valuable and mostly complete: it tells the agent what the trace covers and when to use it. The only missing context is explicit caveats such as read-only status, potential cost/complexity of running a full cross-layer trace, and what happens when no matching contract is found. These are minor for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 single parameter symbol_or_path is already well-described in the schema with examples and matching semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, but with high schema description coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the necessary work.

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 starts with 'Full cross-layer trace' and enumerates specific outputs: stack location, contract triangle, cross-layer verify tasks, and active-PR links. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling trace_in_stack, calling this the 'enriched trace' versus a 'lightweight stack-location-only lookup.' An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from the closest alternative.

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 gives direct usage guidance: use this tool when the enriched cross-layer trace is needed, and use trace_in_stack for a lightweight stack-location-only lookup. This explicit when/when-not pairing with a named alternative is exactly what an agent needs to choose correctly.

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