get_trace_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context: what makes compile_time_enabled false, when destination is empty, when elapsed_s is 0, and how that relates to a trace start_trace did not start. This is meaningful edge-case disclosure beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the return contract. The second paragraph is a single dense, clause-heavy sentence that is efficient but harder to parse than necessary; otherwise there is no waste.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape (system_status enum values, compile_time_enabled, connected, destination, elapsed_s) and explains the invariant relations between them. Combined with annotations that cover safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this read-only status query.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No param semantics are needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report whether Unreal Insights tracing is compiled in, currently connected, and to what destination'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns. It does not, however, name any sibling (e.g. list_traces, start_trace) to differentiate itself, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description references 'a trace start_trace did not start', which hints this is the status-check companion to start_trace/stop_trace. It never explicitly states when to call this versus alternatives such as list_traces or frame_timing.

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