leak_report

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context that this runs apitrace's checker, which is consistent with the annotations, but it doesn't disclose details like whether a report file is produced, how large the output can be, or any runtime implications. With the annotations carrying the burden, the description adds modest context — no more.

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 zero wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and every word 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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one-liner adequately captures the tool's purpose. However, with two undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the overall package has a clear gap: an agent cannot be fully confident about what timeout and max_bytes control. For a low-complexity tool this is still adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It only clarifies the required 'trace' parameter. The two integer parameters, timeout and max_bytes, receive no explanation in either the schema or the description — an agent is left guessing whether max_bytes limits the trace scanned, the report size, or something else. Given 0% schema coverage, the description insufficiently compensates.

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 ('Run'), a specific resource (apitrace's object-leak checker), and a target ('against a trace'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling trace-analysis tools such as dump_calls, call_histogram, and diff_images, none of which check for object leaks. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied: you run this when you want a leak report from an apitrace. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a trace must already exist), and no discussion of when to choose this over the many sibling trace-analysis tools. The absence of an overlapping sibling lowers the cost of this gap, but the guidance is still only implied.

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