get_agent_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the ordered return shape (each entry with name, args, status) and the empty-array return for unknown or non-owned sessions, which is not implied by the schema.

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 sentences, each purpose-specific: output definition, usage vs. alternative, and parameter sourcing. No filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the output format, ordering guarantee, empty-array edge case, and parameter provenance. Nothing essential is missing 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 compensates by documenting session_id as 'id from get_recent_sessions / record_session'. This tells the agent where to obtain the ID and what it refers to, which the bare string type does not convey.

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?

Description opens with 'The ordered sequence of tool calls for one session -- each entry {name, args, status}', which clearly states the verb, resource, and output structure. It explicitly contrasts with get_tool_metrics, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Description explicitly instructs: 'Use to replay what the agent actually did, in execution order; use get_tool_metrics for aggregate counts.' This names the alternative and the condition selecting it, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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