trace

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies that paths are 'bounded' and 'hard-edge' and that relationship type, depth, and number of paths can be limited. This clarifies the scope and behavior beyond the safety hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the key constraints. There is no wasted wording; it is appropriately concise for the level of detail provided.

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 the 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and the tool's non-trivial behavior (bounded, hard-edge), the description does not fully explain critical details like what 'hard-edge' means, how 'to' null affects behavior, or what the output structure looks like (though output schema exists). The description covers the main idea but leaves gaps that an agent might need clarified.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions relationship type (via), depth (max_depth), and number of paths (k), and implies from-to via the purpose. However, it does not explicitly map these to parameter names or explain defaults or null behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 returns bounded hard-edge paths from one node to a specific target or narrative device, and mentions limiting relationship type, depth, and number of paths. It is specific about the action (tracing paths) and resource (nodes), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like neighborhood or find, though the purpose is fairly distinct.

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 path tracing with constraints, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It says 'you can limit relationship type, depth, and number of paths,' which gives context but no direct guidance on selection. The usage is more implied than explicit.

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