arthas_trace

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

Discloses background execution, waiting behavior, and job ID return. With no annotations, this is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior, though it could mention that the trace is a continuous monitor until count or timeout.

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, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with purpose and then explains behavior succinctly.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. Minor lack: does not mention how to retrieve results from job ID, but that is likely covered by arthas_async_jobs.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds little beyond schema. No additional parameter explanations are provided beyond what the schema already describes.

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 'Trace method execution path and timing', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like arthas_stack or arthas_watch by mentioning background execution and async behavior.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use inline vs async mode via awaitMs parameter. However, does not explicitly contrast with other similar tools, leaving some ambiguity about when trace is preferred over stack or watch.

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