trace_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that the tool polls session state and reports live progress, including trace size and log tail. It does not contradict the annotations and provides reasonable transparency for a read-only polling operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon introducing three concise, relevant output categories. Every word earns its place, with no wasted or redundant phrasing.

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 a simple polling tool with one parameter, an output schema, and clear read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete. It conveys the operation, the resource type, and the main status content. Missing sibling differentiation and explicit usage guidance are real gaps but are not severe enough to make the tool unusable.

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%, but the description partially compensates by explaining that 'session' refers to a trace or replay session. This adds domain meaning to the single required parameter, though it does not specify the expected ID format or how to obtain a valid session identifier.

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 uses the specific verb 'Poll' with a clear resource: 'a trace or replay session', and enumerates the returned status items (still running, trace size, log tail). This clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from closely named siblings like trace_info or apitrace_status.

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 description implies when to use the tool—whenever a trace or replay session's status is needed—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The usage context is inferable but not directly stated.

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