load_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions auto-detection of format and multi-source loading but omits details like required permissions, error handling, performance implications, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 concise with a clear opening line followed by a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose. However, the parameter list uses a less structured format (Args: with colons) which slightly reduces readability.

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 has 6 parameters (none required) and an output schema exists, the description lacks details about what the function returns, error messages, and interactions between parameters (e.g., using both path and trace_id). It is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: path, data, trace_id, source (with default), profile, region. It adds meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'Trace ID to fetch from X-Ray or CloudWatch'), but could be more specific about input 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 'Load a trace from file, string, X-Ray, or CloudWatch. Auto-detects format.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_errs and search_xray which are for analysis or searching.

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 lists arguments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for loading traces from given sources but lacks guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer siblings like list_traces or search_xray.

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