Godette

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns a graph, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, or how the graph is structured. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Trace a signal chain') and includes key details (chain components and output). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (tracing with depth limits), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output type but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or result interpretation. It's complete enough for basic use but has clear gaps.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'startSignal' initiates the trace. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Trace a signal chain' with specific components (emission → handlers → chained emissions → further handlers) and mentions it returns a graph. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_signal_connections' by focusing on chain traversal rather than direct connections. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies it's for tracing signal chains, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over tools like 'find_signal_connections' or 'get_signal_log', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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