trace_signal_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the trusted Verdi NPI priority, the bounded TraceWeave Source Graph fallback, the non-exhaustive nature of a found path, the exactness condition for no-path results, and the unsupported_reason fallback. This prevents an agent from over-trusting or misinterpreting results.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, algorithm priority, exactness caveats, and an important sibling distinction. It lacks any structural formatting such as bullets, making it somewhat hard to scan, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

The description gives substantial behavioral and result-caveat context, including claim_semantics, negative_claim_allowed, and unsupported_reason. However, with no output schema and incomplete parameter explanations, some important call details are left to inference. It is adequate for a knowledgeable agent but not fully complete.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter guidance. The required parameters compile_log, from_signal, and to_signal are never explained beyond general phrasing, and top_hint is not mentioned at all. The schema's expand_assigns description is useful, but the core required parameters remain underdocumented for an agent.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Find a structural connectivity path between two signals.' The last sentence explicitly distinguishes this from temporal driver semantics and names the appropriate sibling tool, explain_signal_driver, so an agent can reliably separate the two.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when structural connectivity between two signals is needed. It explicitly tells agents not to use it for driver semantics and points to explain_signal_driver as the alternative. It doesn't compare against other siblings like trace_x_source or search_signals, but the main exclusion is well handled.

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