Read GPU Trace information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that credential-shaped values are redacted, which is not expressed in annotations. It also clarifies the contents (collection and replay configuration), providing value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence is front-loaded with the primary function, and the second adds a critical security-related detail. Every word 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 tool has no output schema and moderate complexity with four parameters. The description covers the core function and redaction but omits return format, pagination behavior, and how filtering works. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail about the response structure would improve completeness.

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 only 25% (only report_id has a description), and the tool description does not explain limit, offset, or filter_regex. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, filter_regex's target is ambiguous and could refer to filtering the name/value table, which the description does not clarify. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool reads the exported Trace Information name/value table, including collection and replay configuration. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gpu_trace_report_overview or get_gpu_trace_summary, which focus on overviews or summaries rather than the raw table. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast its scope.

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 usage for reading exported trace metadata, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. The context of 'exported' and 'name/value table' gives some situational framing, but the guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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