ck_trace_packet

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying content ('failure patterns and eval candidates'), which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is a single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks guidance on required context (e.g., that session_id or task_id should typically be provided). Events_limit is not addressed. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for a 4-parameter tool with no required params.

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 documentation covers 75% of parameters (project_root, session_id, task_id). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and does not compensate for the undocumented events_limit parameter. 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Export') and clearly identifies the resource ('structured session or task trace packet') with additional details ('failure patterns and eval candidates') that distinguish it from sibling tools like ck_session or ck_failure_clusters.

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 'trace-centered improvement loops' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not guidance. No exclusions or sibling differentiation are mentioned.

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