qa_get_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavior disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns the full trace and its constituent parts, which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the trace persists after being read, whether it can be called multiple times, whether the session must be ended already, or error behavior (e.g., calling before a session exists). It's a read operation, which is fairly clear, but lacks depth beyond what's stated.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, enumerates the return contents, states the purpose, and adds the key precondition. Every sentence 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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers return contents (goal, steps, final URL, aria-snapshot) and the prerequisite (session_end first). It could mention the interaction with session_end's own behavior and replayability, but for a single-param read tool the description is reasonably complete.

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 must compensate for the session_id parameter. The description mentions 'session_end first' and the tool name references 'trace,' but the description never explicitly states that session_id identifies which session's trace to retrieve. The parameter's role is only implied by context, not clearly explained in the 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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Return the full recorded trace') with a precise scope enumerated: goal, every step, final URL, final aria-snapshot. It also names the purpose ('so the calling LLM can judge whether the goal was achieved'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling session_start/act/observe/end tools that operate during the session rather than reading back its record.

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 gives clear usage context: it's a read-back/reporting tool used after a session, and it explicitly instructs 'Call session_end first.' While it doesn't enumerate exclusions or alternatives, the precondition (session_end first) and the clear purpose effectively guide when to use it. It could name alternatives explicitly but the sibling set makes the distinction obvious.

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