trace_portal_route_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Metadata only, no script bodies', which is a key behavior. However, it does not disclose other important aspects such as read-only nature, required permissions, or potential performance impact, leaving gaps.

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 conveys the core purpose and a key constraint. It is maximally concise with no redundant information.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain what the output looks like, how results are structured, or how this tool fits with siblings. More detail is needed for effective use.

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 69%, meaning many parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond 'map relationships'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the load.

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 action ('Map widget→provider→route relationships'), which is a specific verb+resource structure. It further clarifies the scope with 'Metadata only, no script bodies', distinguishing it from siblings like search_portal_regex_matches or get_portal_component_code.

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 mapping relationships and excludes script content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_portal_regex_matches for content search). No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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