qa_get_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses what the trace includes and the prerequisite ordering, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if session_end has not been called, or any side effects. The name 'get' implies read-only, but explicit disclosure is absent.

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, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core action and output contents, while the second provides a necessary ordering instruction. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 retrieval tool with one obvious parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers what is returned (goal, steps, URL, snapshot) and the required prerequisite. It does not cover error cases or what to do if the trace is unavailable, but these are likely edge cases that can be inferred or discovered at runtime.

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 0% and the description does not mention the session_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description could have clarified that it expects the session ID from session_start or session_end, or provided format details. The lack of any parameter guidance fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 action ('Return the full recorded trace') and specifies the exact contents (goal, every step, final URL, final aria-snapshot). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on post-session retrieval for evaluation, not session management or actions.

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 instruction 'Call session_end first' provides a clear prerequisite for when to use the tool, implying it should be used after session completion. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, though the context of sibling names makes the role obvious.

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