trace_data_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states the tool records every write access and optionally filters by value. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, side effects (e.g., buffer consumption), or interactions with other trace settings.

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, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured bullet-like Args list. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, parameter details, and return value. The presence of an output schema and the brief return description suffice for completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a detailed Args section for all three parameters, providing format examples and acceptable values (e.g., 'byte', 'word', 'long', 'quad', 'auto' for data_width). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool configures a data write trace on a variable, recording every write access. It distinguishes from siblings like trace_data_read, trace_start, etc., by focusing specifically on write access and optional filtering.

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 usage for tracing variable writes with optional filtering but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trace_data_read or other trace tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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