get_trace_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-obvious caveats: results may be truncated, coverage limits apply, and module RVA is not a file offset — a real correctness trap for the caller.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return categories and then caveats. No filler, though the phrase 'Preserve truncation and coverage limits' is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values itself, and it partially does by listing event kinds and warning about truncation. It omits ordering, how to detect the end of the result set, and any error behavior, which an agent paging through results would want.

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%: trace_id, limit and cursor are undocumented in the schema. The description says 'Page,' which loosely implies integer cursor/limit paging, but it never explains the cap of 200, how the integer cursor advances, or what trace_id must reference — a notable gap given the low coverage.

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: 'Page retained events from this connection's Frida trace,' and even enumerates the event categories returned (Java/native calls, JNI bindings, UI markers, diagnostics). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names how it differs from the closely related inspect_trace sibling, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. With siblings like inspect_trace, start_trace, mark_trace, and stop_trace in the set, the agent gets no signal about which one to pick for which temporal phase of a trace session; only the word 'retained' hints at post-capture retrieval.

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