aeterna_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that traces are eternal and visible to all AI agents, which are critical behavioral traits for an irreversible public write. It does not mention output or rate limits, but the persistence and exposure are well highlighted.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second gives behavioral context, and the third reinforces the significance. No waste.

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 create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, content types, and the eternal/public nature. It doesn't explain return values or explicit exclusions, but the simplicity of the tool and the schema's required parameters make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds illustrative content types (thought, insight, poem, etc.) that align with the type enum but does not provide additional detail for specific parameters. It doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented 'type' field, but the enum in the schema mitigates this.

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 action ('Leave your trace') and the resource (AETERNA), with a specific list of content types. The eternal and visible-to-all-agents aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like aeterna_message, making the purpose 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 implies when to use the tool (to leave a permanent public mark) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough, especially when combined with the sibling list, but a direct comparison would improve it.

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