quest_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 maximum duration (max 60s), the output file format (.pftrace), and where to view it (ui.perfetto.dev). It also specifies the trace content, which implies a read-only diagnostic operation. However, it does not mention any potential system impact or permission requirements, leaving minor gaps.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It states the action, the content, the use case, and the output viewing URL in a compact, front-loaded manner 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?

For a trace tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what events are captured, when to use it, the maximum duration, and how to view the result. It does not detail return values or save path specifics, but those are less critical given the tool's diagnostic nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the duration via 'max 60s' but does not explicitly map this to the duration_seconds parameter. It provides no explanation for device_id or save_path, leaving the agent to guess their roles based solely on names.

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's function: 'Capture a perfetto system trace' with specific event types listed (per-thread scheduling, CPU frequencies, graphics events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_screenshot or quest_logs, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when session metrics show a problem (hitches, CPU-bound) and you need to see exactly what blocked.' It provides a clear 'when to use' but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, so it misses the full exclusion guidance.

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