configure_tracing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool controls (sampling rate, excluded paths) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether settings are overwritten, idempotency, or side effects. The description lacks depth for a mutation operation.

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 relatively concise with a short paragraph and a structured args list. The list adds necessary detail, but the prose is front-loaded and efficient. Minor redundancy exists between the first sentence and the list.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters with basic descriptions. However, it does not specify whether the configuration replaces or merges with existing settings, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools. The context signals indicate 5 parameters and 3 required, and the description addresses the required ones, but lacks depth for a few optional ones.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's args list adds meaningful details beyond the schema's titles. For example, it specifies that sample_rate is 0.0-1.0 and excluded_paths is a list of URL paths. This compensates well for the schema gaps, though some parameters could benefit from more precise formats.

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 verb 'configure' and resource 'distributed tracing' for an application, listing specific settings like sampling rate and excluded paths. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'configure_logs' and 'configure_profiling' by naming the target resource 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?

The description and tool name imply the tool is for configuring tracing, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use it versus alternatives like 'configure_logs' or 'configure_profiling'. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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