trace_callees

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the tool's behavior: it shows outgoing edges, functions, types, components. It does not mention mutability but implies read-only. Could be more explicit about non-destructive nature.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the tool, second gives use cases. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words.

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?

Complex tool with 5 params and no output schema. The description explains what is shown but not the output format. The use cases help, but return value details are 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., just mentions 'max depth' concept already in schema).

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 it traces outgoing dependencies (callees), functions called, types used, and components rendered. It distinguishes from siblings like trace_callers by focusing on outgoing edges.

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 explicit use cases (mocking, full flow) and implies when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the sibling tool names help differentiate.

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