Reconstruct parent-to-child subagent call-graph trees and child outcomes for a conversation; optionally filter by subagent role or type.
Reconstruct parent-to-child subagent call-graph trees and child outcomes for a conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conv_id | No | Conversation ID to inspect parent, spawned children, and descendants. | |
| role_query | No | Optional substring filter on subagent Role or TypeName. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape at a high level (tree structure plus child outcomes), which is real added value, but it omits whether this is read-only, how deep the traversal goes, and what happens when the optional conv_id is omitted.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the core capability is stated first, and nothing in it repeats the tool name or structured fields.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate the shape of returned lineage data and the behavior when conv_id is absent (required parameters = 0).
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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that results are scoped 'for a conversation'; it does not explain how role_query interacts with the tree or what filtering does to descendant nodes.
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 names a specific verb ('Reconstruct') and a specific resource ('parent-to-child subagent call-graph trees and child outcomes'), which is clearly distinct from the search/sync/digest/health siblings. It does not name or contrast an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a conversation' — an agent can infer this is the lineage-inspection tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling for related questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.