trace_breakdown

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool produces step-by-step scores and flags specific issue types (redundant calls, reasoning gaps, goal drift), which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not describe output format, side effects (likely none), or any limitations, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then giving concrete examples of what it flags. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple interface (one parameter).

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to convey the tool's behavior and return value. It explains what the tool does (scoring and flagging) but does not specify the output structure, scoring scale, or how the results are presented. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent trying to use the result.

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 schema already provides a complete description for the only parameter ('trace') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Step-by-step scoring of every agent decision' with a specific verb ('scoring') and resource ('agent decision'). It goes further to list concrete issues it flags (redundant tool calls, reasoning gaps, goal drift), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools 'judge_trace' and 'efficiency_score' despite not naming them explicitly.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for detailed per-decision analysis, but it does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools. An agent would not know whether to choose this over 'judge_trace' or 'efficiency_score' based on the description alone.

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