Utility Network Trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint that the trace is limited to an existing named Trace Configuration, but it does not explain selection effects, output behavior, or any other side effects beyond what the annotations cover.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise, but its structure is minimal for a tool with 11 parameters and could benefit from brief parameter-group context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for an 11-parameter tool with six required parameters, the description gives only a high-level purpose and one constraint, leaving an agent without contextual guidance on required inputs or execution scope.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds only the precondition that trace_config_name must reference an existing named configuration; the remaining ten parameters, including aprx_path, map_name, source_kind, source_identifier, trace_type, and barriers, receive no semantic clarification.

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 verb and resource: executing a constrained Utility Network trace. It also specifies the constraint that only an existing named Trace Configuration may be used. It does not distinguish this operation from sibling utility-network tools such as validate topology, update subnetwork, or export subnetwork.

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 phrase '仅使用已有命名 Trace Configuration' gives one usage condition: the trace configuration must already exist. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to sibling alternatives for custom trace configuration or other utility-network workflows.

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