trace_step

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it records steps and returns a JSON with step_id and status, but it does not cover permissions, error handling, or side effects. For a non-destructive write operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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-structured with a one-line summary, an explanatory paragraph, and an Args section. It is concise and front-loaded, though the Args section could be more aligned with the schema.

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 complexity of 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description only covers half of the parameters. The existence of an output schema is mentioned but not detailed, and the additional parameters (input, output, content, metadata) are ignored, making the description 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains trace_id, step_name, input_data, and output_data, but the schema has 8 parameters including input, output, content, and metadata, which are undocumented. This mismatch reduces clarity.

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 'Add a step to an execution trace' and explains the action of recording significant steps with input/output data. It is a specific verb+resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling trace tools (e.g., trace_create, trace_complete).

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 says to use it for recording actions in a traced workflow, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., use trace_create first).

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