enable_cross_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 discloses continuous tracing, auto-deletion via expiry_hours, and a max_traces limit. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., performance impact, replacing existing traces, authorization requirements) and does not confirm whether enabling again extends the trace or creates a new one.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and purpose; the second provides a critical distinction from SAT trace. All information is relevant and front-loaded.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and key differentiator. It lacks details on return value (e.g., trace ID), but given the simplicity of enabling a trace, it is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param insight beyond the schema (only the sentence about components defaulting to all and the request_type_filter examples). No significant added value.

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 enables ABAP Cross Trace for a user, listing specific framework components (RAP, OData, SADL, etc.) and contrasting it with SAT trace, which captures only one execution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_st05_trace and disable_cross_trace.

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 contrasts cross trace with SAT trace ('Unlike SAT trace...'), implying cross trace is for continuous monitoring over time. It mentions defaults and a sibling tool list_cross_trace_components, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool.

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