trace_types

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: traces types, finds mismatches, maps chains. No contradiction.

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 sentence with clear enumeration of functions. It is concise but could be structured as bullet points for easier parsing.

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 tool with one parameter, annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of the tool's purpose and outputs.

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% for the single parameter. Description adds context about the tool's operation but does not further clarify the parameter beyond the 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 types across application layers, identifies mismatches, and maps type chains. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_* by focusing on type tracing.

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 implies usage for debugging type mismatches and enforcing layered architecture. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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