Trace a module

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 discloses a key behavior: credential-shaped values are masked, which is useful for the agent to know about output handling. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which is relevant given it takes a blueprint path and id.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and then enumerates the key details. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by clearly listing the return contents: type, parameters, mappings, and both incoming and outgoing references. It also provides the crucial context that the id comes from sibling tools. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of error cases or file-read behavior, but the overall purpose is well-covered.

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 for both parameters is 100%: id and path have clear descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 title explicitly says 'Trace a module' and the description details exactly what it provides: type, parameters, mappings, and dependency references. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_blueprint and audit_blueprint, which operate on the whole blueprint or audit findings respectively.

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 a prerequisite: the module id is obtained from inspect_blueprint or audit findings, as noted in the id parameter description. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or directly naming alternatives.

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