hands_trail

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that results are scoped to 'this session' and include per-run accounting, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or event detail.

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 one tightly structured sentence with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is mostly adequate, but because there is no output schema, the description could do more to explain what 'trail events' and 'per-run accounting' contain. It is sufficient to identify the tool but not fully informative about the returned data.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and the description understandably does not discuss parameters.

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 gives a clear verb-and-resource pair: 'Return' plus 'this session's trail events and per-run accounting.' It states exactly what data the tool produces, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as hands_run or hands_perceive.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it instead of hands_act, hands_run, or hands_perceive. Any usage context—such as inspecting session history versus running actions—must be inferred.

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