Check Agent Trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the types of rules evaluated (deterministic, etc.), giving some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, auth requirements, or error behavior. The list of rule types is helpful but incomplete.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is free of redundancy, but lacks structure (e.g., headers or bullet points) that would improve scanability. Efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 high complexity (nested objects, 11 rule kinds, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain input interpretation, return format, error handling, or how results are structured. The agent would need supplementary knowledge to use this tool effectively.

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% and the description adds no information about the two required parameters ('events' and 'contract'). Both are complex nested objects, but the description does not hint at their structure or purpose, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 verb 'Evaluate' and the resource 'normalized agent event trace' against specific rule categories (permission, stop, completion, retry, scope, ordering). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_contract (likely validates contract structure) and summarize_trace (summarizes).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, nor mention of preconditions or caveats. Usage is only implied by the tool name and context.

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