magento_trace_dependency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it parses di.xml files across modules and lists what it finds, but does not discuss potential performance impacts, read-only nature, or output size. This is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 concise: three sentences front-loading the purpose, technical details, and a practical use case. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description omits any mention of return format or structure. For a tool that traces dependencies, knowing what the output looks like (e.g., a dependency graph or list) would help an agent interpret results. This is a moderate gap.

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, but the description adds valuable examples for className and explains the direction enum options. This enhances understanding beyond schema alone, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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: tracing dependency injection graphs for PHP classes/interfaces in Magento. It specifies actions (parsing di.xml, finding preferences, plugins, etc.) and a concrete use case ('Cannot instantiate interface' errors), distinguishing it from sibling find tools.

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 explicitly recommends use for understanding runtime class resolution, especially for specific errors. While it does not list alternatives or exclusions, the context of sibling tools implies uniqueness, and the guidance is clear enough for an AI agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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