trace_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that the output is JSON from apitrace info and includes API/call count/frame count, but it does not clarify what the per_frame parameter changes or whether the summary can be large. No contradiction exists.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists the included fields and output format, making it efficient for an agent to scan.

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 and annotations cover the return shape and safety, so the description need not repeat those. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no usage guidance, a key input (per_frame) remains ambiguous and there is no indication when trace_info should be selected over related siblings. This leaves an agent under-equipped for correct invocation.

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 must carry parameter meaning. 'Summary of a trace file' weakly maps to the trace parameter being a trace file path, but per_frame is completely unexplained. The agent cannot confidently determine what per_frame=true means, and no format/path guidance for trace is provided.

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 names the resource (trace file) and directs the agent to a summary containing API, call count, and frame count, with the output identified as JSON from apitrace info. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like frame_summary or dump_calls, though the summary focus is evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use trace_info versus siblings such as frame_summary, dump_calls, call_histogram, or list_frames. The description only weakly implies it is for an overall overview of a trace file but provides no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.

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