trace_state_updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral details such as returning setter calls with context (handler, useEffect, inline), trigger events, and async/conditional status. However, it does not clarify whether 'all locations' is scoped to the specified file or the entire project, leaving a minor 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 two sentences long, with the core purpose in the first sentence and complementary details in the second. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (setter calls with context, trigger events, async/conditional flags). The required parameters are clear from the schema, and the description aligns with the tool's function. It does not detail the return structure, but that is covered by the description's summary.

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?

All parameters are covered in the schema with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level details but provides conceptual context about what the tool traces (state updates), which is helpful but not necessary.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Find all locations that update a state variable'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_prop_flow and find_render_triggers. It also adds value with the promise of understanding state flow without reading entire files.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Helps understand state flow without reading entire files'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, but the implied use case is evident.

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