trace_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is read-only (traces events) and what it shows. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or limitations, but given the nature of tracing, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and provides parameter examples. However, it does not describe the return format or any pagination/limit behavior, which could be useful 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?

The schema describes the 'event' parameter as a Lampa event name. The description adds concrete examples ('e.g. 'app', 'full', ...'), which provide valuable context beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, this additional information enhances understanding.

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 traces a Lampa event through the codebase, showing emit and listen locations. It uses specific verbs ('Trace', 'Shows') and resource ('event'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_all_events'.

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 the tool is 'essential for understanding the event bus', implying usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.

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