Read Trace Artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's addition of sensitivity (raw artifacts may contain credentials, personal data, secrets) and preconditions adds beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with usage condition, every sentence adds value: precondition, instruction, sensitivity. No wasted words.

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 read tool with 7 params and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, preconditions, sensitivity. Missing detailed explanation of all parameters, but output schema likely covers return structure.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions acknowledgeRawCapture (precondition), maxBytes (bounded), and path/ref (trace-contained path or reference), but does not explain asText, parseJson, sessionId, or the nested ref structure. Partial 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 a specific artifact (body, DOM, screenshot, etc.) identified by summary/search, distinguishing it from siblings like monitor_read_events or monitor_search_bodies.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when summary and targeted search have identified one exact artifact...'), provides preconditions (acknowledgeRawCapture: true, bounded maxBytes), and gives instructions (extract only necessary finding, no dumping). Does not explicitly list alternatives, but context implies summary/search tools should be used first.

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