trace_create

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a trace and returns a trace_id and status, but lacks details on persistence, limits, or side effects. The annotation destructiveHint=false is consistent, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is implicit.

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 concise with five sentences, no redundancy, and a logical flow: purpose, usage workflow, parameter explanations, return value. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: creation, lifecycle, parameters, and return format. It mentions trace_id needed for subsequent steps, which aids completeness. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or limits.

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 description adds value over the bare schema by explaining the 'name' parameter as a descriptive label with an example, and 'metadata' as an optional JSON string. Given 0% schema coverage, this compensation is adequate but could be more precise about metadata format.

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 creates an execution trace for multi-step workflows. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trace_complete and trace_step by specifying it is the start of the trace lifecycle.

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 advises to start a trace before complex operations, then add steps and complete it, providing clear context for usage. It implicitly differentiates from trace_step and trace_complete but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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