Stop Raw Trace

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the non-destructive flushing behavior. The description adds context about sensitivity (trace directory must not be committed) and preconditions, enhancing transparency beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail the flushing mechanics or side effects beyond sensitivity.

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 concise yet comprehensive: it front-loads the purpose, then lists preconditions, next steps, and sensitivity. Every sentence serves a clear function, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple stop tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, prerequisites, follow-up actions, and data sensitivity. It is fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description cannot add param-level detail. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context, which is sufficient for a parameterless 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's purpose: to flush buffered trace events after reproduction finishes. It uses a specific verb ('use when') and resource ('buffered trace events'), distinguishing it from siblings like monitor_start and monitor_get_summary.

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 conditions are provided: use after reproduction finishes, preconditions (monitor active, avoid extra actions), and next steps (call monitor_get_summary first, then targeted searches, read artifact only when necessary). This clearly tells when to use and what to do next.

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