magento_trace_data_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's output (set/get files, XML references) and implies read-only analysis, but does not explicitly disclose safety, side effects, or rate limits. The description adds moderate context beyond the 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes an example. No redundant or missing information; every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what output to expect (PHP files, set/get, XML configs). It's fairly complete but could specify search scope (e.g., recursive or limited to certain directories).

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful context by showing how to use the parameters in a real scenario ('who sets custom_discounted_price_incl_tax on Quote\Address'). This goes beyond just describing 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: 'Trace how a data attribute flows through the Magento codebase' with specific verbs ('trace', 'find') and resources ('PHP files', 'XML configs'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on data attribute flow, with a concrete example (custom_discounted_price_incl_tax on Quote\Address).

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 provides a clear use case ('Use this to understand data dependencies...') and an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling trace tools like magento_trace_flow or magento_trace_call_chain, leaving some ambiguity.

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