query_trace

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

The description discloses key behaviors: results are ordered by most recent first and limited by the limit parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that no modifications occur, and there are no annotations to fall back on. The description gives basic insight but not comprehensive 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?

The description is three short sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, filters, and result behavior. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

For a query tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, filtering options, ordering, and limit. It lacks explicit information about response format or state effects, but given the simplicity, it is adequately 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions of each parameter. The description adds the nuance that filters can be combined ('and/or') and reiterates the limit behavior, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Query' with resource 'historical reasoning steps', clearly stating the operation. It also distinguishes from sibling 'build_trace' by implying a retrieval vs creation distinction, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides context for querying but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'build_trace' or any alternative. The intent is implied by the verb 'query' and the mention of 'historical steps', but no explicit guidance is given.

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