trace_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are paginated ('one page of rows') and shaped as {column: value}. It says nothing about ordering, error behavior, or what happens when schema names a nonexistent table, so it remains partial.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the core behavior (paginated rows of one table) is front-loaded. It is efficient but very compressed, packing the return shape and the pid option into one clause.

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?

For a 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format and pagination, which is the important part. It still leaves the two required parameters (trace, schema) semantically undefined and gives no guidance on discovering valid table names, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 only 40% (limit and offset are documented in-schema; trace, schema, and pid are not). The description compensates partly by implying schema is a table name within the .trace and that pid optionally narrows to one process's rows, but it never explains what a trace identifier looks like or what valid schema values are.

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 (returns rows) and resource (one table of a .trace), and clarifies the row shape ({column: value}). It does not, however, name or contrast itself with siblings like trace_tables, so an agent must infer the boundary between listing tables and querying one.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only usage hint is the optional pid filter, which is stated as a capability rather than a condition for choosing this tool over trace_tables or capture_records.

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