trace_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the main source of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core algorithm—take a template sequence, compare it with successful samples, locate the interruption—but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how the successful sample is selected, or what the return value looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear purpose and a useful scoped scenario. Every part contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description carries substantial operational burden. It explains the comparison logic well but omits how to specify the target chain, what a successful sample is, and what the response will contain, making it adequate but incomplete for direct invocation.

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 only 43%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining which parameters are needed or how they map to the described flow. Terms like '链路' and '成功样本' are not connected to traceId, requestId, entityId, or labels, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from the schema alone.

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 operation: flow completeness check, comparing a chain's log template sequence against successful samples to locate where the flow broke. It also distinguishes itself by positioning as the first choice for the 'flow disappears halfway without error' scenario, unlike sibling tools.

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 explicitly identifies the triggering condition ('流程走一半没了但不报错') and marks itself as the preferred tool for that case. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when not to use it, so only the when-to-use half is fully explicit.

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