trace_x_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses chain restarts on backend/artifact changes, never mixing provenance, backend_status vs trace_restarted fields, lock-free connectivity queries, and preserved claim_semantics/NPI evidence. This is unusually 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 main use case is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences each add a distinct behavioral fact rather than filler. It is dense but could be easier to scan with structured bullets.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers route selection, restart semantics, output status fields, and node-level semantics well. The main remaining gap is the lack of a clearer result-shape explanation, though the description provides substantial context.

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 coverage is only 43%, and required parameters like wave_path, signal_path, and compile_log lack descriptions in both the schema and the tool description. The description references 'target time' and 'original signal' but does not explain how the required inputs should be 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 first sentence states a precise trigger (signal shows X/Z at a target time) and a concrete action (trace propagation chain through upstream driver logic). This clearly scopes the tool and distinguishes it from generic siblings like trace_signal_path.

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 explicitly scopes invocation to X/Z-at-time cases and describes the connectivity route fallback order. It does not name an alternative tool or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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