brain_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: results are chronological, include confidence and status flags, and cover fix history, architecture decisions, and past bugs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and supporting details about return contents, ordering, and flags are packed efficiently.

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 simple single-parameter schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how it is ordered, and what kinds of memory entries are included.

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 100% and the single parameter file_path is clearly documented with an example. The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that the parameter selects a specific file for tracing. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show all memory entries associated with a specific file.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as a file-scoped trace of fix history, architecture decisions, and past bugs.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need all memory entries tied to a specific file, in chronological order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the file-scoped framing and sibling names like brain_recall make the intended use reasonably clear.

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