analyze_trace_evidence

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

Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints; the description adds the useful context that analysis is deterministic and interfaces with Agent consumption. It does not, however, explain what 'verify' means in practice (e.g., whether a failed verification blocks results or raises an error). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation and quickly conveys the determinism and verification purpose. There is no redundant or filler content; however, it might have benefited from a slightly more structured breakdown of the analysis and verification steps.

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 simple one-parameter signature, the provided output schema, and the annotations, the description is somewhat adequate. It still leaves out the usage context against siblings and the semantics of verification results or failure behavior. These omissions matter, so the definition is only minimally viable.

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 input schema provides only a name and type for trace_evidence_id, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description's phrase 'a stored, normalized ... artifact' helps indicate that trace_evidence_id refers to such an artifact, but it does not describe how to obtain the ID, what format is expected, or how the parameter maps to the artifact store. This is a notable gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('analyze') and names a specific resource ('stored, normalized sched/off-CPU/lock TraceEvidence artifact'), then adds a further purpose ('verify it before Agent use'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic analysis tools, although it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like analyze_benchmark or list_hotspots.

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 implies a before-use stage ('before Agent use') but provides no explicit guidance on when to call this tool vs. alternatives, and does not state any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer that this is a validation gate prior to analysis, which is a key gap.

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