run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: --json is appended automatically and the output is machine-readable JSON. It also warns that only certain subcommands support --json, which sets expectations about possible failures. It does not cover error handling or exit codes, but covers the most relevant automation behavior.

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 mostly front-loaded and informative, but it includes a quoted help line that repeats the first sentence ('Run the agent-trace CLI') and adds no new value. The useful subcommand list earns its place, but the redundant 'Real --help output' section could be removed.

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 simple CLI-runner tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the main behavior and the --json caveat. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned JSON, error behavior, or how to pass complex arguments, leaving some ambiguity for an agent needing to parse the result.

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 0% because the sole parameter 'args' has no schema description. The description partially compensates by mentioning 'subcommand/args' and listing valid subcommands, implying the array should contain a subcommand followed by arguments. However, it does not specify ordering, flags, or examples, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 it runs the agent-trace CLI with a given subcommand and args, which is a specific verb+resource. It does not distinguish from siblings because none are listed, but the purpose is unambiguous despite some redundant repetition from the embedded help text.

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 explicit guidance on which subcommands support the automatically appended --json flag (list, replay, inspect, diff, run), helping the agent avoid unsupported invocations. It does not mention alternatives because there are no sibling tools, but the usage context is clear.

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