trace_map_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool generates an HTML report, calculates coverage metrics, and presents gaps to the user, including the assertion that orphan requirements are the most critical signal. It does not mention side effects or return format, but these are likely expected for a reporting tool.

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 information-dense and well-structured. It opens with the most critical usage instruction ('Run AFTER...'), then details functionality and outputs, and closes with a user-facing directive. Every sentence adds value, and the text is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisites, what it does, what it calculates, what it generates, and what action to take with results. It is fully self-contained.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter (project_path) with a clear description ('Absolute path to the project directory'). The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: it maps Post-RC findings and RC task completions back to requirement IDs from trace_enhance_prd, and calculates specific metrics. It uses specific verbs ('maps', 'calculates', 'generates') and distinct resources, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like trace_status or postrc_report.

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 states when to run the tool ('Run AFTER both building and scanning') and lists prerequisites (trace_enhance_prd must have been run, ideally postrc_scan completed). It provides clear sequencing context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, which prevents a perfect score.

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