tracesDbAccess

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety info. It adds context about the content (tables, rows, duration) and the slow-run connection, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any limitations (e.g., whether results are limited to slow statements). Given the annotations cover the core safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and key output elements. It front-loads the main point and avoids redundancy. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and annotations already cover the safety profile. However, the description does not specify what exactly constitutes 'database accesses' (e.g., all queries, only slow ones) nor how withSystemEvents affects the result. Given the existence of closely related siblings (tracesStatements, tracesHitList), more detail on the output scope would help an agent choose correctly. The absence of an output schema makes the description the only source of behavioral information, yet it leaves some ambiguity.

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%: both id and withSystemEvents have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters themselves; it only describes the overall output. Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, the description does not need to compensate, but it also doesn't add value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: it retrieves database access details for a specific trace, listing tables, row counts, and durations. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tracesList (list of traces) and tracesStatements (SQL statements) by focusing on database access performance. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so the purpose is clear but not perfectly explicit.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints at the context ('where a slow run met the database') but does not state conditions for selection or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is for DB access analysis rather than general trace details. There is no mention of when to prefer tracesStatements or tracesHitList.

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