diagnose_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that traces are read chapter by chapter, not all at once, that a CUSUM alarm is raised, that it looks back, and that gated traces are not analyzed and nothing is spent. This gives an agent an unusually clear picture of internal behavior and cost implications.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then method, then parameter guidance and gating. Every sentence adds useful information, though the CUSUM and 'looks back' jargon could be slightly clearer. Overall it is compact and well organized.

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 tool with no annotations and no siblings, the description covers purpose, trace input formats, gating thresholds, cost behavior, and expected output summary. The main gap is the undocumented source and project parameters, but the required parameter is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The 'trace' parameter is well explained with supported formats: .json, .jsonl, and LangSmith trace id. However, 'source' and 'project' are not described at all, and the schema has no descriptions, leaving them opaque. Since the required parameter is fully covered but optional ones are not, this is adequate but 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find where a long AI-agent run went wrong' and clearly states the outcome: returns the 3 steps to read first. It also distinguishes the tool's behavior (chapter-by-chapter reading, CUSUM alarm, lookback) from generic trace viewers, and there are no sibling tools that would create ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: diagnosing a long AI-agent run. It also explains trace formats and gating behavior. However, it does not state exclusions or compare with alternatives, though none are provided as siblings, so this is acceptable.

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