query_trace_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals nothing about side effects, return format, required permissions, or failure modes. The word 'read' implies non-destructiveness, but even that is unstated explicitly.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no useful information and fails to front-load any meaningful content. A single phrase that merely repeats the name is not an appropriately sized description.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without knowing what a query trace is, what data it returns, or how parameters interplay. This is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It mentions none of the six parameters, leaving query_trace_id, snapshot_id, request_id, etc. entirely undefined. The agent has no clue which are essential or how they relate to the operation.

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 is a direct restatement of the tool name ('query trace read') with no additional context. It provides no verb-resource structure or any differentiation from sibling tools like dict_read or evidence_get. An agent cannot determine what a 'query trace' is or what reading it entails.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large set of siblings with similar 'read' prefixes, the absence of any routing information leaves the agent guessing.

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