Get Trace Manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about data sensitivity ('can expose local paths, target URLs, capture options, and trace metadata'), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions; could mention that the tool returns a manifest file.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by preconditions, usage guidance, and sensitivity note. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Structure is logical and scannable.

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 covers purpose, preconditions, post-invocation workflow, and data sensitivity. Output schema exists (not shown here) so return details are not needed. The main gap is parameter description, but overall it provides sufficient context for a low-complexity tool with good annotations.

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 compensate. While it implies the sessionId parameter must correspond to an existing trace session ('Preconditions: a completed or active trace session must exist'), it does not explicitly name or describe the parameter, its format, or how to obtain a valid session ID. This is insufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 retrieves a trace manifest containing exact capture configuration, file inventory, schema, timing, and session metadata. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('manifest'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like monitor_get_summary and monitor_read_artifact.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when a full-profile workflow needs exact capture configuration...'), preconditions ('a completed or active trace session must exist'), and next-step recommendations ('prefer monitor_get_summary for diagnosis and use manifest paths only to target later reads'). This fully covers usage context and alternatives.

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