trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the start/stop lifecycle and the artifact return, plus the path-pairing rule, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when no path is supplied. This is useful but not rich enough for a higher score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No filler or restatement of the schema.

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 (26 params), the description covers the essential flow and the critical path-pairing requirement. The presence of an output schema handles return-value documentation, so the description is sufficiently complete for accurate invocation, though it could clarify default path behavior.

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 coverage is high (92%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only the contextual note about using the same path for matching start/stop requests, which gives minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's 'path' property.

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 states a specific action ('Start or stop trace-log capture') and a clear outcome ('return the resulting artifact when capture ends'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'record' by explicitly naming trace-log capture as its resource.

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 when trace-log capture is needed, and provides a key pairing instruction ('Use the same artifact path for the matching start and stop requests'). However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., 'record') or mention when not to use it.

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