trace_cross_service_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states that this is a read-only traversal, nothing about cost/latency at higher maxDepth, whether a workspace must be ingested first, or what the trace result 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?

A single fifteen-word sentence with no filler and the core concept front-loaded. It earns its place, though the extreme brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than trading words for value.

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?

For a four-parameter, no-output-schema tool with zero annotations, the description is too thin: it omits prerequisite state (indexed workspace), the meaning of depth-limited traversal, and any sense of returned trace shape. An agent could invoke it but could easily misuse maxDepth or workspacePath.

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 all four parameters (including maxDepth bounds, entryPoint, workspacePath) are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a light hint that traversal starts from an entry endpoint/topic, which loosely maps entryPoint and startService but supplies no new constraint or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('trace') and resource ('distributed flow across microservices') with a stated starting point (endpoint or topic). This is meaningfully distinct from single-service siblings like get_call_chain or get_callers, though the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over get_call_chain, analyze_code_impact, or inspect_data_lineage, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a workspace must be indexed first). The only implicit guidance is the 'starting from an endpoint or topic' framing.

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