Trace Import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a valuable interpretive detail ('moduleSizeBytes is the unminified webpack module size, not emitted chunk size') and a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or return shape, but 'trace' and 'explain' imply a non-mutating operation.

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 with no filler. Purpose, output semantics, and prerequisites are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, a prerequisite, and one output caveat, but it does not describe the trace result structure despite having no output schema. There is also a slight workflow ambiguity: the schema ties buildId to load_build_stats while the description only mentions loading webpack stats first.

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 baseline applies. The schema already documents buildId, moduleName, and limit; the description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The moduleSizeBytes note is about output interpretation, not input parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Explain why a module is bundled') and a specific method ('tracing its import chain from an entry point to the module'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on chunks, duplicates, or growth.

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 use case is clearly framed: use it to explain why a particular module is bundled. It also gives a prerequisite ('Requires load_webpack_stats first'), which helps an agent sequence its calls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is strong.

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