trace_render_cascade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output behavior (lists components, sorts by duration) and gives an example of propagation. It also notes the 0-based index and the prerequisite call, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't state side effects or explicitly say it's read-only, but the wording implies non-destructive inspection.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an illustrative example and a clear usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how it behaves, and how to invoke it. It even explains the relationship with a sibling tool. The only minor gap is not describing the exact shape of the output, but the textual description of the list is sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the meaning of commit_index ('0-based commit_index') and ties it to get_render_summary's total_commits, but this is marginal value beyond the schema. No additional semantics for profile_path.

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 has a specific verb+resource: 'shows what triggered it and lists every component that re-rendered as a result, sorted by actual duration descending.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope (a specific React commit) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_render_summary by focusing on the cascade of re-renders.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call get_render_summary first to find total_commits, then use 0-based commit_index.' This names a dependency and a sequence, helping the agent understand when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives beyond get_render_summary, but the context is clear.

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