Session trace

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the trail is bounded, chronological, tool inputs and results are redacted, and injected memory IDs are shown exactly. This goes beyond annotation basics, though it does not specify ordering direction or the boundary's default cap in detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the core action and scope, then lists exactly what the trail contains. No filler or redundant words; every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: prompts, memory IDs, redacted tool inputs/results, and answers. It could mention the default bound or behavior for missing sessions, but the schema and annotations cover the essential invocation context, so the description is nearly complete.

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 descriptions cover sessionId and includeOutputs, leaving limit without a description. The word 'bounded' in the description loosely suggests the role of limit, but it does not explain its meaning or default. The schema already provides type and min/max constraints, so the description adds only moderate parameter-level value beyond the structured fields.

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 a bounded chronological audit trail for one captured session', and enumerates the contents (prompts, memory IDs, redacted tool I/O, answers). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_memory and get_memory_snapshot, which concern memory storage operations rather than session-level I/O tracing.

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 purpose statement implies the tool is for reviewing a session's audit trail, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer session_trace over audit_memory or other trace-like siblings, nor any exclusions, so the usage context is only implied through the description itself.

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