ck_trace_packet

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the output contains failure patterns and eval candidates. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description does not contradict annotations. However, it omits details like whether the export is a file download or inline data, which would enrich transparency.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: it names the action (export), the resource (trace packet), and key contents (failure patterns, eval candidates). No redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and output. Minor missing details about the format of the exported data or how parameters affect the result, but overall sufficient for an export-oriented tool.

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 the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description does not add new meaning or usage tips for parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool exports a structured session or task trace packet with failure patterns and eval candidates. The verb 'export' and noun 'trace packet' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ck_context or ck_observability, which may also deal with trace data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for trace-centered improvement loops, but lacks explicit when-not or comparative context. No usage prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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