trace_evaluation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Trace the step-by-step evaluation' implies a read-only operation but does not disclose return format, side effects, or whether it modifies state. Insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence and front-loaded, but it is overly terse. It contains no wasted words, but it fails to include critical details that could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity of tracing evaluation and the availability of an output schema, the description omits what the trace output contains (e.g., steps, times, values). It is not complete enough for effective use.

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%, yet the description adds no information about parameters. The param names 'expression' and 'max_depth' are self-explanatory but the description does not clarify their roles or constraints.

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 'Trace the step-by-step evaluation of an expression' clearly states the tool's action (trace) and resource (evaluation of an expression). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'evaluate_cell' which returns final results, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar debug tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'evaluate_cell', 'time_expression', or 'get_computation_result'. The description lacks context for selection.

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