vectr_trace

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool traverses the call graph in both directions and showing an example output format. While the annotations already indicate it is read-only and idempotent, the description adds the behavioral detail of bidirectional traversal. A small gap is that it does not explicitly state that results are textual, but the example compensates.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the primary usage condition, then describes the action, followed by two 'NOT' conditions with alternatives, and ends with an example. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 is quite complete given the tool's complexity, the presence of annotations, and full schema coverage. It covers purpose, when to use/not use, and provides an example. However, it lacks an explicit statement that the output is a textual listing, though this is implied by the example. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new information about parameters beyond what is in the schema, except for illustrating the 'name' parameter in the example. The schema already provides defaults, enums, and descriptions for 'limit', 'direction', and 'include_builtins', so the description is adequate but not exceptional.

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 the tool's purpose: traversing the call graph for a known symbol name to understand its callers or callees before modification. It uses specific language ('traverses the call graph') and provides an example. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating when not to use it and which alternative tools to use instead.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('know the SYMBOL NAME and need to understand its callers or callees before modifying it') and when not to use it ('when you don't know the symbol name yet — use vectr_search or vectr_locate first' and 'when you just want the definition location — use vectr_locate instead'). This gives clear decision criteria for tool selection.

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