execution_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full disclosure burden and opens with 'Read-only,' clearly establishing the safety profile. It also reveals that the trace is bounded, follows resolved indirect dispatch, and returns an ordered structure rather than prose. It does not detail result format or error behavior, but the critical behavioral traits are spelled out.

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 three dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the most important facts: read-only, bounded, entry-point trace, and non-narrative output. Every clause contributes to selection or invocation decisions.

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 a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to bound it, and how to page results. It leaves the exact returned structure to the `format` parameter, but the mental model of an 'ordered structure of what runs' is sufficient for safe initial invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds a helpful conceptual grouping—max_depth/max_steps as cost bounds and branch/frontier offsets as paging controls—but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning or syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific operation—a bounded forward call-and-branch trace from an entry point—and makes the output type explicit by distinguishing it from generated narrative prose. It also names a sibling (`hubs`) that it is not, which strongly aids tool differentiation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to see the control skeleton reachable from an entry.' It also provides a when-not-to-use alternative: 'For pure centrality use `hubs` instead,' plus practical instruction on bounding cost via max_depth/max_steps and paging branches/frontier.

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