demo_explain_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions running and explaining but omits side effects, safety (e.g., destructive vs. read-only), or prerequisites. For a demo tool, safety could be inferred but not explicitly stated.

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 short sentence, which is concise but at the cost of missing critical details. It earns its place by stating the core action but fails to deliver additional 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 4 parameters, many siblings, and an output schema (though not shown), the description is inadequately complete. It does not explain what 'traced demo flow' or 'explain' means, nor the expected output format.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the four parameters (root_dir, table, customer_id, trace_db_path). Parameter names alone are insufficient to convey expected values or constraints.

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 verb 'Run' and 'explain', specifies the resource 'traced demo flow', and indicates the sequential action. It distinguishes from siblings like demo_explain_run_failure by emphasizing the immediate explanation after running.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., demo_explain_concurrency_failure_storm, demo_explain_idempotency_conflict), the lack of usage context forces the agent to guess.

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