agent-trace-auditor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does add meaningful behavioral detail: it lists detection categories and return values, and it is implied to be a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies the trace, how it handles malformed input, or whether there are side effects. The coverage is adequate but leaves several behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second lists detection categories and the return format. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information with 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, key input parameters indirectly, and return values (verdict, score, findings). Given there is no output schema, the description explains the return envelope well. However, it does not detail the structure of 'detailed findings' or clarify how the required 'trace' parameter is structured beyond the schema, so it is not fully exhaustive for a complex audit tool.

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% with each parameter having a baseline description. The tool description adds further semantic value by connecting budget_usd to 'cost overruns' and tool_schemas to 'schema violations', which clarifies how parameters are used in the audit. This exceeds the schema's generic descriptions, earning a 4.

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 performs a 'full audit' of an agent execution trace and enumerates specific issues it detects (infinite loops, duplicate calls, tool errors, cost overruns, schema violations, latency bottlenecks), plus the return values (verdict, score, findings). This is a precise verb+resource with explicit scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diff_traces and quick_verdict by being comprehensive rather than comparative or quick.

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 use for deep analysis via 'Full audit', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over quick_verdict or diff_traces. No alternatives are named, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is inferred from the tool name and description rather than clearly instructed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses key return information (score delta, cost delta, added/removed tools, issue type changes), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or limitations regarding input size or trace format.

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 that efficiently lists the return values without unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place, and the list format is easy to scan.

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's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and return contents. However, the budget_usd parameter is unexplained, and no guidance is given on how this tool fits with sibling tools, leaving moderate gaps in completeness.

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 schema provides descriptions for trace_a and trace_b, but the description adds little beyond that. More importantly, budget_usd has no schema description and the tool description does not clarify its meaning or relation to the 'cost delta' output, leaving a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource 'two agent traces' and states the purpose 'detect regressions'. This distinguishes it from siblings that likely operate on a single trace, such as audit_trace and quick_verdict.

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 use when comparing a baseline and new trace to detect regressions, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools by name, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output includes score and issue counts, but does not explain thresholds, read-only nature, failure modes, or how the trace is processed. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core verdict, followed by the use case. Every word earns its place with zero filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite a simple schema, the lack of an output schema and annotations places the burden on the description to explain return values and side effects. It only hints at score/issue counts, leaving the verdict values, evaluation criteria, and CI-specific behavior unspecified.

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 only 50%, with budget_usd lacking any description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, leaving budget_usd's purpose completely unclear. It fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 produces a pass/review/block verdict with score and issue counts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_trace and diff_traces that focus on tracing and comparison. The verb is implied but the resource and output are specific.

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 explicitly recommends use in CI gates, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the CI gate use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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