trace_portal_route_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses that the tool deals with metadata and no script bodies. There is no mention of side effects (likely none), required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or how results are structured. This is insufficient for a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema.

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 at two sentences, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key constraint. However, given the tool's complexity, it might be too terse, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, pagination, how parameters interact, or what 'minimal', 'compact', 'full' output modes mean. The description fails to compensate for the missing metadata from other fields.

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?

The description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema covers about 69% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description offers no examples, relationships between parameters, or guidance on usage patterns. For a complex tool with many filters, this is a gap.

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 maps widget→provider→route relationships, and adds a key constraint ('metadata only, no script bodies'). However, the arrow notation could be clearer, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_portal_regex_matches or query_local_graph that might also trace relationships.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for metadata relationships but doesn't exclude script-heavy cases or mention when to choose it over other trace tools. Sibling tools like search_portal_regex_matches and query_local_graph suggest overlapping functionality, but no differentiation is provided.

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