trace_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, returns synchronous results, or what side effects occur. For a hooking tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence (11 words) that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the 'frida-trace style' qualifier, setting context immediately.

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?

Despite low schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description omits critical context: what the tool returns (likely events?), how to interpret results, and the purpose of session_id. For a tool that modifies execution state, this is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains the 'pattern' parameter with a format example. It completely fails to mention the required 'session_id' parameter, leaving its purpose and usage unclear.

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 action ('hook all exports') and the resource ('matching module!glob pattern'), with a concrete example. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_hook' which likely hooks a single function, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage for tracing exports via a glob pattern but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Among siblings like 'add_hook', the differentiation is only implicit.

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