trace_value_origin

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires special permissions, or what the output represents. 'Trace' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit. The description adds some context about state boundaries and wave time, but not enough to understand behavioral implications.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. No filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple purpose statement, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 a complex nested request schema, many sibling tools, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, usage context, parameter structure, or how it differs from other trace tools. The output schema exists but the description does not help an agent understand what to expect or how to construct an 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It hints at 'wave time' mapping to the 'time' field and 'sampled value' to 'signals', but does not clarify the required 'context_id' or the nested 'request' structure. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('trace') and resource ('sampled value origin') with scope ('across state boundaries at a wave time'). It distinguishes from general 'trace' and sibling tools like 'trace_active_driver' by specifying the sampling and state-boundary context, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trace_active_driver' or 'wave_value'. There is no mention of prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or exclusions. The only implied usage is a tracing scenario, but no explicit context is given.

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