TracePass EPCIS 2.0

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

The description labels three actions as read-only (export, capture_job, query) and one as write (capture), providing clear behavioral expectations. It also notes return types (JSON-LD, 202 with jobId) and error cases. Annotations only provide idempotentHint=false, so the description adds substantial value.

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 well-organized, starting with an overall purpose, then plan notes, then a bulleted list of actions with args. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be shortened slightly, but structure aids 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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, actions, and behavioral notes. It does not detail the structure of query results or capture job responses, but for invocation it provides sufficient information.

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 generic args with minimal description, but the tool description fully explains each action's expected arguments (id for export, events for capture, jobId for capture_job, optional params for query) with examples and format details. This compensates for the schema's lack of specificity.

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 handles GS1 EPCIS 2.0 supply-chain events, and lists four distinct actions with specific purposes (export, capture, capture_job, query). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tracepass_passports or tracepass_products.

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 explains which actions require a paid add-on and which are available on Starter plans, and mentions error behavior (403) for unauthorized actions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the action-based differentiation is helpful for choosing the right operation.

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