trace_callgraph

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool uses GitLab but fails to mention side effects, prerequisites, or output format. The description is too brief to convey significant behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's core function, making it appropriately concise.

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 the simple input (one string parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on output format, limitations, or behavior (e.g., synchronous vs. async), leaving some gaps for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'className', so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It provides an example ('UiPageServiceImpl') but no additional semantic or formatting details.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: tracing a call graph hierarchy from Controller to Mapper via GitLab. It uses a specific verb ('追踪') and resource ('调用层级图'), and the scope ('通过 GitLab') distinguishes it from related tools like trace_callchain.

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 tracing call graphs through GitLab but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. No comparisons with sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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