statement_callers

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses the browser-extension dependency, instructs the agent to report failures rather than attempt browser automation, notes that an ambiguous service name returns candidates instead of guessing, and mentions the output reports how many items were omitted. It does not cover auth requirements or return-format details beyond counts and the tree.

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?

Four tight paragraphs are front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, then follow-ups, then a runtime caveat. The opening sentence is dense with enumerated outputs but still readable; nothing sentence-wise is wasted, though the enumeration could be trimmed slightly.

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 an 18-parameter trace tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key filter semantics, follow-up routing, and the browser-bridge operating constraint. There is no output schema, yet the description does describe the shape of the result (tables, counts, caller tree) and truncation behaviour, leaving only minor gaps around permissions and exact result formatting.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it groups the shared trace filters and gives a concrete semantic example (response_time_min_ms backtraces only the slow executions), and clarifies that `statement` accepts either a top_database_statements id or a text fragment. That is useful clarification beyond the schema's field-level text.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource – tracing what causes one SQL statement – and enumerates the exact output: executing services, requests, background tasks, cron jobs with SERVICE_METHOD ids, counts, and the upstream caller tree. It also names the sibling tools that feed it (top_database_statements) and that continue the workflow (slow_statement_executions, list_traces), so an agent can place it precisely among siblings.

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?

It states the two required inputs and where their values come from, explains that shared trace filters narrow the analysed requests, and explicitly routes follow-up work to slow_statement_executions or list_traces with the right parameter wiring. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g. vs service_backtrace or service_flow), so it stops short of a 5.

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