gltrim_trace

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

The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it preserves replay setup state, which suggests that certain GL setup calls are retained during trimming. However, it does not describe what happens to the original trace, whether output is written in place, side effects, or how it relates to readOnly/destructive hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler; 'OpenGL-specific' and 'preserves replay setup state' are the two most decision-relevant facts and are front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the overall lack of completeness.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It gives no guidance on output behavior, parameter usage, default effects, or when to use this instead of the sibling trim_trace. The presence of an output schema and all-false annotations does not reduce the need for more operational context.

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 schema description coverage at 0% and 8 parameters, the description had a responsibility to clarify key parameters like setup_frames, output, swap_to_finish, or keep_all_states. It only vaguely references 'setup state', which maps weakly to setup_frames. The description provides almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 the tool as an OpenGL-specific frame trim, distinguishing it from the generic sibling trim_trace. It also mentions preserving replay setup state, which adds useful purpose-specific context. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'trims' and reads more as a noun phrase than a directive.

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 phrase 'OpenGL-specific' implies this tool should be used for OpenGL traces rather than generic trace trimming, and 'preserves replay setup state' hints at a key selection criterion. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over trim_trace or other alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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