surface_async_causality

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses the core operation (tracing across async boundaries) but does not disclose expected output format, side effects, prerequisites, or read-only nature. The description is accurate but lacks depth about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and including a concrete example. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns or provides. It does not mention return values, result format, or failure conditions. For an async tracing tool, an agent needs to know what the output looks like to interpret it, making this a significant gap.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, but it does clarify the domain of the stackTrace and sourcemapDir through the async boundary focus. This is sufficient given the schema already explains each field.

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 specific action verbs 'Detect and trace' with a clear resource ('async boundaries') and a defined goal ('locate scheduling origins'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retrace_stack and retrieve_code_context by focusing on async scheduling behavior rather than general stack retracing or code lookup.

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 when async boundary tracing is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool's name and purpose.

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