Decision Trail

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context about what the trace reveals (updates/supersedes/contradictions), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for output content.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and then elaborates with a concise list of what the trace reveals. No wasted 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?

For a read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's core behavior and output expectations. It could be more explicit about the return format, but the current description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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% with clear descriptions for both node_id and project. The tool description does not add any further meaning to parameters, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 'Trace' and clearly identifies the resource: 'the full chain of decisions that led to a given state.' It also details the output focus (what was decided, updated/superseded, contradicted), distinguishing it from sibling tools like detect_contradictions or trace_dependencies.

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 context is implied through the purpose: use when you need to trace decision chains to a state. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternative tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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