trace_syscalls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool optionally performs a side-effecting action ('kick off in-guest prep via qemu-ga') and that it is primarily a plan generator, but it does not describe what that prep entails, permission/auth needs, or whether it mutates the VM state. Partial behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and deliverable, with the follow-up workflow noted second. The parenthetical is dense but earns its place by naming the concrete tracing mechanisms. Minimal 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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained. However, for a tool with an optional side-effecting in-guest prep step and no annotations, the description leaves the prep's effects and all three parameters unexplained, so it is only marginally 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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only obliquely implies the 'vm' parameter ('for this VM') and gestures at target_app via 'NT-syscall/API tracing', leaving 'workspace' entirely unaddressed. Insufficient for full compensation.

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 ('Write a concrete NT-syscall/API tracing plan for this VM') and enumerates the concrete deliverables (ETW/WPR steps, KDNET setup, static-surface fallback). The second sentence distinguishes it from execution siblings by clarifying it produces commands rather than performing tracing directly.

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?

Gives clear context: dynamic tracing needs in-guest tooling, so use this to get exact commands, and it names the follow-up sibling (vm_get_file) for retrieving results. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or contrast with static alternatives like dump_api_surface, but the workflow guidance is solid.

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