xenia_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns a session-specific series of actions, includes the task/outcome, and omits cross-session threading. It does not explicitly mention read-only nature or error cases, but it provides substantial behavioral 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 verbose and meandering, with four complex sentences and several asides. It is not front-loaded and requires careful reading to extract the core functionality. While every sentence adds some context, the lack of brevity and unclear structure hurt usability for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers key contextual elements: session scope, recovery semantics, and full argument retrieval. It lacks an explicit return format or error handling details, but for a single-parameter tool with no output schema, it provides sufficient context to understand expected behavior.

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 a clear description of action_id ('The action to trace'). The tool description adds extra nuance (e.g., accepts any ID, not just failed ones) but does not fundamentally change parameter understanding, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 communicates that the tool returns a trace of an action's context (task, outcome, and intervening actions) and distinguishes itself from xenia_calls by offering full argument details. However, it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'trace' and is more descriptive than concise, which slightly muddles the core purpose.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with xenia_calls, noting that xenia_trace is the way to read full arguments, and clarifies that it accepts any action ID, not just failures. It also explains the session-based limitation and when a recovery series is absent, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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