retrace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. It also doesn't describe what happens on missing mapping files or malformed input, leaving the agent with limited understanding of edge cases.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, followed by a compact bullet list for args. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It could mention error conditions or the need for the mapping file to match the build, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains stacktrace as 'the obfuscated trace, copied from find_crashes output' and mapping_path with a typical file location pattern. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare string types in the schema.

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 action: 'De-obfuscate an R8/ProGuard stack trace using a mapping.txt file.' This specifies a verb, resource, and context, making it distinct from sibling tools like find_crashes (which discovers crashes) and read_logs (which reads raw logs).

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 usage by noting the stacktrace is 'copied from find_crashes output,' which gives a clear workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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