trace

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. The word 'bounded' hints at limits (max_depth/max_nodes), and 'Return' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose edge cases, errors, cost, or what the evidence graph contains. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. It is concise and every word adds value (e.g., 'bounded', the enumerated kinds). No wasted content.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with a nested request object containing six sub-parameters. The one-sentence description does not provide enough context for correct invocation, such as the role of roots, stop_at, or targets, or how the graph is constructed. It is far from complete.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It lists the 'kind' values (driver, load, path, fanin, fanout) but provides no explanation of 'roots', 'stop_at', 'targets', 'max_depth', or 'max_nodes'. It adds minimal value beyond 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 function: 'Return a bounded driver, load, path, fanin, or fanout evidence graph.' It names the specific resource (evidence graph) and enumerates graph types, distinguishing it from more specific siblings like trace_active_driver and trace_value_origin.

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. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer applicability from the enum values in the schema.

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