Trace TNL usage

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent), the description adds that the server overwrites any caller-supplied timestamp. This is a key behavioral detail for the agent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core functionality and wastes no words. It is maximally concise while still being informative.

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?

While the description covers the core behavior and parameter usage, it omits information about the return value when reading events. For a tool with no output schema, this is a gap: the agent doesn't know what the read operation returns.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by explaining the conditional semantics of the `event` parameter: its presence triggers recording, absence triggers reading. The description clarifies the dual role beyond the 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 tool's dual purpose of recording or reading session events related to TNL usage. It uses specific verbs ('record' and 'read') and a specific resource ('session events'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like approve_tnl_diff or retrieve_tnl.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: pass `event` to record, omit it to read. This tells the agent exactly how to invoke the tool for the desired action.

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