apitrace_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that apitrace requires no host application but requires a build matching the game's bitness. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand operational constraints.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose with 'Preflight:' and immediately lists the three key output areas, then adds a concise usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter status/preflight tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is complete. It states what information will be retrieved, when to call it, and the key prerequisite regarding bitness. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level documentation is not needed. The baseline of 4 applies because the description appropriately focuses on what the status call reports rather than parameter details that do not exist.

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 identifies apitrace_status as a preflight/status tool covering installed builds, trace storage locations, and running processes. It is specific and useful, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling trace_status tool, which could also report on running traces.

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 instruction 'Call this before anything else' is an explicit and strong usage directive. It also notes that apitrace does not require a host application, unlike GUI-backed RE servers, giving contextual guidance. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use this tool beyond the general preflight framing.

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