trace_feature_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool finds files, classes, and functions and orders them by dependency chain. However, it does not mention limitations (e.g., project syncing requirements, performance constraints, or edge cases). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second elaborates on mechanism, third gives usage context. No fluff 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format: 'finds all related files, classes, and functions, then orders them by dependency chain.' It also contextualizes the tool's role in understanding features. Missing a bit about return structure, but sufficient for a trace 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—for example, 'keyword' examples are already in the schema description. No extra semantic value is provided.

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: 'Trace the complete flow of a feature through the codebase.' It specifies the action (trace), resource (feature flow), and scope (complete flow, ordering by dependency chain). This differentiates it from siblings like get_dependencies (just dependencies) or generate_feature_flow_diagram (likely visualization).

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 provides explicit examples of keywords ('auth', 'crawl', etc.) and states the benefit: 'helps AI understand which files to read when working on a feature.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to sibling tools, making it slightly less comprehensive.

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