vectr_ingest_traces

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate mutation but not destructiveness), the description discloses that dynamic edges are stored with edge_type='dynamic' and appear as '(dynamic)' in results. It also warns about typos: unknown symbols are ingested but reported as warnings. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter details with no fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action. Slight improvement could be breaking into sections, but it remains very concise.

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?

Given that the tool has one parameter with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the complete behavioral context: ingestion of dynamic edges, marking, warnings for unrecognized symbols, and when not to use. Nothing essential is 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the event structure, noting optional fields (caller_file, caller_line), and describing behavior for unmatched symbols. This goes beyond the schema's parameter types.

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 says 'Import runtime trace events into the symbol graph to enrich static call analysis,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with static analysis (vectr_trace) and listing dynamic dispatch patterns (decorators, __getattr__, etc.) that only this tool handles.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when you have runtime profiling data... that reveals dynamic dispatch patterns the static analyser cannot see.' Also gives a clear when-not: 'NOT needed if static analysis (vectr_trace) already shows the call relationships.' This is excellent guidance.

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