create_event_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the artifact's behavior (prints event order and payload fields) and its temporary lifecycle ending in deletion, but says nothing about where the script is written, whether syncing mutates a connected project, or any permission/auth requirements. Adequate but with real gaps.

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?

Two short blocks with the purpose front-loaded and the workflow stated as a compact imperative sequence. Little waste, though the workflow sentence compresses four distinct steps into one line without much structure.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the lifecycle is conveyed. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage on four parameters, the definition leaves too much of the call surface unstated for a create-style tool.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'Sync it' maps to the sync flag and the enumerated event names hint at event_names, but directory vs file_name semantics and the file_name default are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a temporary Lua script') and narrows the purpose to printing event order and documented payload fields. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like create_script or make_script by its event-tracing framing, though it never names those siblings to confirm the distinction.

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 Context sentence gives a clear trigger (tracing ProjectileLaunched, ProjectileHit, EntityDamage, or other documented events) and a concrete four-step workflow: sync, reproduce, inspect Host Panel Console, delete. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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