trace_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, performance implications, or return format. The only hints come from parameter descriptions in the schema, not from the main description.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids fluff and efficiently points to alternatives, achieving maximum clarity per word.

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 description covers the core purpose and alternatives, and the schema documents all parameters. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description doesn't convey what results to expect or how to interpret them. It's adequate for a simple trace tool but lacks some context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value; it hints at the tool's purpose (tracing constants) which clarifies the symbol parameter, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or specifics beyond the schema.

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 function: tracing constant values and hardcoded copies (magic numbers). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to alternatives (impact_analysis for function impact, rename_symbol for renaming), making its scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for value tracing) versus when to use alternatives: 'Function impact? impact_analysis. Rename? rename_symbol.' This provides clear exclusion guidance and alternative routing.

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