diff_traces

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by identifying the underlying semantic call-stream differ, which clarifies the nature of the comparison beyond what annotations state.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and the method used, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

With 12 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the one-sentence description is not enough for correct invocation. It explains what the tool does but not how to configure optional behavior such as call ranges, suppression, or extra arguments.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It mentions none of the 12 parameters, not even the required reference_trace and source_trace, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema field titles.

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 names a specific verb ('Compare'), a resource ('two traces'), and a specific method ('apitrace's semantic call-stream differ'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_images and diff_state, which compare different artifacts.

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 role of comparing two traces is implied well enough to know when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over diff_images or diff_state, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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