perseus_trace

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

The description adds the key behavioral trait 'not yet implemented' beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not specify what happens upon invocation (e.g., error, empty response). While annotations declare readOnlyHint, the description fails to detail the tool's non-functional state.

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 concise at one sentence, but it front-loads the core purpose and caveat. While concise, it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points) and could benefit from a note about the output schema.

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?

Given the tool is not implemented, the description adequately communicates its intended purpose and non-functional status. The output schema exists and is not described in the description, but that is acceptable. The description is complete for a stub tool, though it omits specifics about error behavior or alternative tools.

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% with both parameters described ('Query for trace data' and 'Output format (e.g., json, provn)'). The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The 'not yet implemented' note does not affect parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool returns provenance trace data, specifying the verb 'Return' and the resource 'provenance trace data'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., perseus_agora, perseus_memory) by its unique focus on trace data. The 'not yet implemented' note does not detract from purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and purpose, which is insufficient.

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