get_run_timeline

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: results are ordered by host receipt time, paging applies, and cross-process Binder entries are candidates rather than causal proof. It stops short of explaining the retention window or what merging does with unregistered traces.

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, both earning their place: the first states operation, ordering, and paging; the second is a meaningful epistemic caveat. Slightly dense with domain jargon but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say more about the shape of the merged result (entry types, fields, ordering guarantees across sources) and what 'retained' means. As written an agent knows how to call it but not what it will get back beyond 'a paginated timeline'.

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 only 25% — only analysis_project_id is documented. The description's sole nod to parameters is 'with pagination', which adds nothing about limit/offset semantics, defaults, or page size, and it never clarifies what run_id accepts or how it relates to the Frida trace files being merged.

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?

Names a specific operation (merging retained run events with explicitly registered Frida trace files), the ordering key (host receipt time), and the pagination behavior. This is distinguishable from siblings such as get_trace_events (raw trace events) and read_analysis_run (run metadata), though the jargon 'retained run events' is not defined and 'merge' could mean producing a view vs. mutating stored data.

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?

Use is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a combined chronological view of a run's events plus registered traces. It never states when to prefer it over get_trace_events, inspect_trace, or read_analysis_run, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that Frida trace files must already be registered).

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