get_causal_chain_for_failure

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the tool traverses backwards in time, combines action/network/console error data, and outputs a root-cause finding. However, it does not explain output format, limitations, or any side effects, so it is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a high-level result (surfaces the most likely root cause) but does not specify the structure of the returned chain or how to interpret confidence. Given the moderate complexity and full parameter schema, the description is largely sufficient but could be enhanced with output details.

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 covers 100% of parameters (trace_path and lookback_ms) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it neither enhances nor detracts from schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('walks backwards') and identifies the resource ('failed action') and the output ('chronological chain of preceding actions, network errors, and console errors'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_action_timeline or get_console_errors by emphasizing causal-chain building and root-cause surfacing.

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 implies usage for root-cause analysis after a failed action but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as analyze_race_conditions or get_trace_summary. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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