judge_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses main outputs (verdict, grade, explanation) and that it scores across four dimensions, but does not mention error handling, side effects, or what the four dimensions are. This is adequate but not rich context.

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 wastes no words, efficiently covering purpose, method, and outputs. It is concise and well-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?

For a 2-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and that it evaluates four dimensions. It omits the specific dimensions and lacks usage guidance, but the core information for invoking the tool is present.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described ('Agent trace as a JSON string' and 'Optional: override the goal stated in the trace'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Diagnoses an agent trace' and specifies outputs (verdict, grade, plain-English explanation) and that it 'scores performance across four dimensions.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trace_breakdown or efficiency_score, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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. It only explains what the tool does, not the contexts that favor it over trace_breakdown or efficiency_score, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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