Search Trace Events

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: 'matches may expose raw event fields, inline DOM content, URLs, headers, values, or payloads.' This warns about data exposure beyond what annotations convey, and also mentions preconditions.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph of about 100 words, logically covering when to use, preconditions, next steps, and sensitivity. No redundant information, though the 'Next:' part is slightly instructional and could be trimmed.

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?

With 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers when to use and sensitivity but lacks guidance on filtering capabilities like urlContains, type, or limit. It mentions 'stream and filters' but does not elaborate on available filter parameters, leaving some gaps in understanding the tool's full functionality.

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% for 7 parameters. The description only vaguely hints at using 'stream and filters' but does not explain individual parameters like limit, sinceSeq, urlContains, type, or sessionId. With low coverage, the description should compensate more but fails to provide sufficient detail for most parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a search over trace events, stating exactly when to use it: 'when a trace summary leaves a targeted question about an endpoint, DOM text, event type, sequence boundary, redirect, or WebSocket message.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitor_read_events (general reading) and monitor_search_bodies (searching 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when a trace summary leaves a targeted question...' along with preconditions ('a trace session must exist; provide the narrowest useful stream and filters') and next steps ('read only the matching artifact or small event range'). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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