Record performance trace

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it writes bounded events to a private local artifact and that it starts or stops tracing, but lacks details on session requirements, whether traces are exclusive, performance impact, or how the artifact is accessed.

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, front-loading the verb and resource. No wasted words, and it captures the essential purpose 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how to manage the start/stop state, what 'bounded' means, or how to retrieve the artifact, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It provides no meaning for timeoutMs, categories, targetSessionId, or sessionId beyond their names. Only the action parameter's start/stop semantics are implicitly covered.

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 a specific action (start or stop CDP Tracing) and the output (write bounded events to a private local artifact). This distinguishes it from sibling performance tools like performance_get_metrics or performance_coverage.

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 CDP tracing sessions through its start/stop wording, but no explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context about the tracing lifecycle.

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