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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavioral details: the server re-simulates the trace over the verified path, hands you the session at exactly at_tick, and applies the same 10-second budget as trace verification. It doesn't cover all possible concerns (e.g., side effects on the original trace) but provides meaningful procedural context.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the closing rhetorical question ('What happens just past the tick where they stopped looking?') adds no operational value and feels like fluff. The second sentence about the 10-second budget is useful, but the overall structure is slightly padded.

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 tool involves re-simulation and a precise session state, the description explains the mechanism and the budget well. It also implies the return value ('hands you the session'), which suffices without an output schema. It doesn't go into error cases or prerequisites, but for a single-parameter tool the description is fairly complete.

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?

The only parameter `trace_id` is obvious from the tool name and the description's 'from an existing trace' phrasing, so the meaning is clear. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explicitly define the parameter's format or where to obtain it, relying on the reader's inference.

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 purpose with a specific verb 'fork' and the resource 'a live flock session from an existing trace.' It distinguishes from siblings like `flock_create` by explicitly emphasizing the 'from an existing trace' source, and explains the resulting session state (at the trace's at_tick).

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 when to use the tool: when you want to continue a session where the author stopped, making the use case clear. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the phrase 'from an existing trace' differentiates it from plain `flock_create`, and the mention of the 10-second budget provides a constraint.

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