Trace execution flow downstream from a specific symbol to reveal how it behaves and what it depends on. Adjust traversal depth to control how far the analysis goes.
Trace the execution flow downstream starting from a specific symbol to understand its behavior deeply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Maximum traversal depth (default 5). | |
| symbol | Yes | Name of the symbol to trace. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the directional qualifier 'downstream,' which is mildly useful, but says nothing about traversal cost, output shape, cycle handling, or what 'understand its behavior deeply' concretely returns.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a graph traversal tool rather than being optimally sized.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return structure (call chain, tree, graph) and the downstream-vs-upstream scope, but it does neither. 'Understand its behavior deeply' is filler that leaves the agent without enough to call the tool confidently.
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 100%, so both 'symbol' and 'depth' are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the symbol parameter and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 verb ('Trace') and resource ('execution flow downstream') with a clear scope ('starting from a specific symbol'). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling axon_pro_explain_flow, leaving the agent to guess which flow tool applies.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite several plausible siblings (axon_pro_explain_flow, axon_pro_impact, axon_pro_context). No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.