Query Traces

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the filters, such as what a default query returns or performance implications. It does not contradict annotations.

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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

With a nested boundingBox parameter, output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the core functionality (querying traces with optional filters) adequately. It implies that omitting filters returns all traces, and since an output schema exists, return details need not be described. Slightly more guidance on defaults would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters (net, unit, layer, boundingBox), so the description adds little beyond referencing the same filters. It does not provide extra details like default units or coordinate behavior, staying at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 'Query traces on the board with optional filters by net, layer, or bounding box,' which clearly identifies the verb (query), resource (traces), and location (board). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on traces specifically, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar query tools like query_zones.

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 through 'optional filters' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like query_zones or get_net_pads. It gives clear context for filtering but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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