from_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the workflow (parse, blame in git history, return suspect set) and discloses the return shape. It does not mention whether any git history access could require permissions or whether the operation is read-only, but the described behavior is clear and non-destructive.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence captures the tool's purpose and key differentiator, the second explains the mechanism, the third lists supported languages, and the fourth gives the return shape. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a useful return shape and gives a solid overall picture of the tool's behavior. However, the unexplained 'head' parameter and lack of any guidance on how to interpret suspects or skipped frames leave small but real gaps for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. While 'trace_text' is implied by 'stack trace' and 'repo' is implied by 'git history,' the 'head' parameter is completely unexplained. This is a meaningful gap because head likely controls which git ref is blamed but the description gives no hint.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it performs RCA from a stack trace or crash log, parses the trace, blames crashing lines in git history, and returns a suspect set. It also distinguishes itself from diff/PR-based analysis with 'no diff or PR needed,' which separates it from sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a stack trace or crash log and no diff or PR is available. It also scopes applicability to Python, JavaScript, Java, and Go traces. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it misses a full when-not-to-use statement.

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