query_trace_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the query nature and parameters but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires authorization. For a query tool, it is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 concise, using a structured docstring format with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter list. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at return values but does not. It explains inputs well but omits what the query returns. Additionally, it assumes familiarity with .jsonl format. This leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter (file_path, mode, filter_object, search_query, limit, bucket_ms) with defaults and mode options, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic types and names.

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 starts with 'Query a specific historical trace file (post-hoc analysis),' which clearly states the verb 'query' and the resource 'historical trace file.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'trace_property_access' (real-time) and 'list_trace_files' (listing) by specifying offline analysis.

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 mentions 'Same as trace_property_access (summary/timeline/sequence/search),' which implies it is for offline analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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