task_execution_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses the tool's history (task_replay fold-in, 2026-07-27) and the behavioral difference of include_stats. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on invalid/missing task_id, whether this is read-only versus potentially expensive, or output characteristics beyond the derived summary distinction.

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?

Efficient and well-structured: a lead sentence stating the core function, then a compact historical note explaining the merge. No wasted words; the tool-fold history is genuinely useful for agents that might remember task_replay.

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?

There's an output schema present, so return-value explanation isn't required. For a two-param read tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers behavior. Minor gap: no note about failure modes or performance for stats computation, but this is a fairly complete description for a filtered read tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both params. Still, the description adds real value by explaining include_stats in plain terms (the old replay view) and clarifying the distinction between timeline-only versus checkpoints+stats. The chronological memo/lifecycle-event detail goes beyond the schema's terse boolean description.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get a task's execution timeline' with the choice of plain vs checkpoints+stats. It's identifiable against siblings like task_status or task_run, though it doesn't explicitly name a distinguishing alternative.

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 explains the plain-timeline vs include_stats distinction well. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives to use instead ('when not to use this'), but the use-case framing around 'how did this task actually go' is clear. Notably it folds in task_replay history, which helps an agent understand the consolidation.

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