trace_reconcile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful side effect (results are written to decision-log with kind=COVERAGE), explains the three input sources, and names output categories including missed reports, hallucinated actions, and concealed reports. It omits failure behavior and authorization needs, but the disclosed behavior is substantially richer than just the tool name.

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 dense and front-loaded, naming the tool's purpose and evidence sources before outputs. It has no filler, though the '四态' phrasing is ambiguous since only three categories are enumerated and the long single sentence could be clearer with structured enumeration.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description explains the key return artifacts, the optional traceback chain, and the decision-log side effect. It is sufficient for a competent agent to invoke the tool, though exact result structure, error behavior, and the intended meaning of '四态' are not fully specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters, defaults, and targets. The description adds conceptual context, such as what the model-layer traceback chain follows and how repo_root relates to git diff, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource: cross-layer evidence reconciliation comparing DSH session trace, git diff, and logs. It enumerates concrete outputs (difference list, consistency rate, optional model-layer chain) and the persistence target, so an agent can clearly distinguish it from audit/query siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_audit, audit_trail, or audit_data_change. No preconditions, exclusions, or routing conditions are stated; the usage context must be entirely inferred from the purpose.

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