RunApiTrace

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the call blocks until one of three termination conditions fires (max_calls reached, timeout_ms elapsed, or debuggee exit), and it returns only a compact summary. Annotations only declare the safety profile (openWorld, non-idempotent), so the blocking semantics are genuinely additive info.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the blocking/termination semantics, then the follow-up pointer. No wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does address the return surface ('compact summary') and points to GetApiTraceLog for detail. It leaves the contents of the summary and the role of trace_id/drain_returns unstated, a minor gap for a moderately simple tool.

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. It meaningfully explains max_calls and timeout_ms by casting them as termination conditions, but trace_id and drain_returns are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Run the debuggee and collect API calls into the given trace session.' It routes detailed inspection to a named sibling (GetApiTraceLog), but does not distinguish itself from the nearby lifecycle siblings StartApiTrace/StopApiTrace, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives clear operational context (run debuggee and gather calls into an existing trace session) and explicitly names the alternative for per-call detail. It does not state prerequisites relative to StartApiTrace/StopApiTrace, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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