Trace one Lampa symbol through code

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world; the description adds behavior they don't cover: truncation with an explicit count and no silent pagination, missing-target → error, unknown event → markdown note rather than a crash, and a 20-item cap on deps reverse refs. That is exactly the failure-mode context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope and the sibling disambiguation, then mode examples and behavioral caveats — no sentence is filler. It is densely parenthetical, though, and the clipped example fragments take a second read, costing a point on structure.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the description correctly points at it while covering the things the schema can't: truncation, error vs. soft-note behavior, and per-mode targeting. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum and target rules are largely already documented; the description still adds value by pairing each mode with a concrete example target and clarifying that `upgrade` expects a repo-relative path rather than an API name. It mostly mirrors the schema, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Follow one event, component, file, or provider through the snapshot graph') and explicitly names the two siblings it is not: `list_catalog` (full catalog) and `search_code` (raw grep). An agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives per-mode usage examples (event/lifecycle/deps/upgrade/api_calls), states the exclusion 'omit target only for api_calls', and warns that `upgrade` takes a file path 'not an API name'. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered, plus routing to alternatives.

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