find_executions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It mentions the tool finds calls and evaluates expressions, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, side effects, or any constraints like scope or state requirements. It provides basic behavior but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and logically introduce optional functionality. Every word is necessary, and no extraneous information is present.

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 complexity of a debugging tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the primary functionality. However, it could be improved by hinting at the return format (e.g., call site locations) to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description rephrases parameter details (e.g., print_exprs as semicolon-delimited) but adds no significant new information beyond the schema. It does not clarify defaults or usage nuances beyond what is already in the schema.

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: finding all calls to a function across a trace. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('calls to a function'), uniquely distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_breakpoint_hits' or 'evaluate'.

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 when needing to locate function calls in a trace, optionally evaluating expressions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, missing an opportunity to clarify its specific role among siblings.

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