trim_trace

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the raw slice's replayability characteristics, performance benefits, and the risk that a mid-run OpenGL slice may omit setup/resources. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly written with no filler. The purpose is in the first sentence, followed by concise but valuable usage guidance and an explicit alternative. Every sentence 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 description is strong on purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral context, and the output schema covers return values. However, with four parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of parameter-level detail is a real gap that makes the tool not fully self-sufficient 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 explain parameters. It only implies 'calls/frames' through 'call/frame slice' and 'slice beginning at call/frame zero,' but gives no syntax, defaults, constraints, interaction between calls and frames, or meaning of the output parameter. This leaves an agent guessing on how to fill in the arguments.

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 first sentence states a specific operation ('Make a raw call/frame slice of a trace') with a clear verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling gltrim_trace by describing the trade-off, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit usage context: slices beginning at zero are replayable and speed up downstream tools. It also directs agents to gltrim_trace for mid-run OpenGL slices when replayability matters. It does not cover all sibling alternatives like sed_trace, but the key alternative is handled.

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