trace_active_driver

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action without explaining what 'feasible' means, whether the operation is read-only, or what the output represents. The parameters max_depth and max_nodes hint at traversal limits, but these are not described, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 with no unnecessary words, making it concise and well-structured. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it does not achieve a perfect score.

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?

The tool has a complex schema with multiple parameters and an output schema, but the description gives no indication of the return format, the meaning of 'feasible,' or how max_depth and max_nodes affect results. It lacks critical context for an agent to handle complex trace scenarios.

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?

The description mentions 'signals' and 'wave time,' which map to the 'signals' and 'time' fields, but it does not explain the purpose of 'context_id,' 'wave_id,' 'max_depth,' or 'max_nodes.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for these parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Evaluate' and identifies the resource as 'active and feasible driver branches for signals at a wave time,' clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trace' or 'trace_value_origin,' but the focus on 'driver branches' provides some distinction.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when evaluating driver branches for signals at a wave time. However, it provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the highest score but is better than merely vague.

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