trace_launch

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that this runs the game and does not block, and warns about flushing cleanly on normal quit. Since annotations only carry generic flags with no safety detail, this extra context is valuable for an agent managing side effects.

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 main action and return value are front-loaded, followed by a concise non-blocking/cleanup note and a tight parameter legend. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 description covers the launch lifecycle, session id, and the two least obvious parameters, but for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions it leaves output and working_dir unexplained and does not mention prerequisites such as wrapper installation. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value documentation, but not these call-preparation gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates for api and method by enumerating valid values and default behavior. However, args, output, and working_dir are left undocumented, so the compensation is only partial despite those being non-trivial parameters.

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 action and resource: 'Launch a game under apitrace and start capturing' and mentions it returns a session id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like trace_stop, trace_status, and replay_trace.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: launch, let the user play, then call trace_stop after normal quit for a clean flush. It also gives conditional method guidance ('Try mhook when... IAT patching misses it') and explains empty api auto-detection. It doesn't explicitly name when not to use the tool, but the operational context is strong.

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