Sa Trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one temporal trait (accumulating for hold_s seconds), but omits material side effects: the default `restart=true` clears the trace, and the call is presumably blocking for hold_s seconds. Mutation scope (which traces/state are affected) and any permission or sweep-state requirements are unstated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action leads and the optional hold behavior follows. It is appropriately sized, though the terse parenthetical is doing double duty as the only usage hint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four parameters are described in the schema. However, for an unannotated state-mutating tool with a default-clearing `restart` flag and a potentially blocking hold duration, the description stops short of the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 100%, so `trace`, `restart`, and `trace_type` enum members are already documented in structured data, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only mild value by framing hold_s as accumulation time and MaxHold as the bursty-signal case, without new syntax, ranges, or interaction rules.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a trace's type') and adds a concrete use-case cue for MaxHold ('hopping/bursty signals'). It is clearly a trace *configuration* tool, distinguishable from the read-oriented `sa_trace_data`, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical '(Max Hold for hopping/bursty signals)' hints when MaxHold is the right choice, and 'optionally accumulate for hold_s seconds' hints at the hold workflow. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as `sa_trace_data` or `sa_sweep`.

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