trace_verify

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the tool confirms integrity and checks for tampering. This informs the agent that the operation is a safe read with no side effects, though it could further detail failure behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear structure: a one-sentence summary, a brief explanation, and a parameter/returns table. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. It covers the tool's main function and parameter adequately, though it could mention that it only verifies without modification.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining trace_id as 'ID of the trace to verify,' which adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag. The single parameter is well-explained.

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 that the tool verifies the integrity of an execution trace, confirming that all steps are present and the trace hasn't been tampered with. This specific verb-resource pair ('verify' + 'trace') distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_create or trace_step, which have different purposes.

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 audit_verify or other verification tools. It does not specify when to use it (e.g., after trace creation) or when not to use it (e.g., for audit verification), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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