add_tracepoint

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

With minimal annotations (only openWorldHint: false), the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the tracepoint does not pause the program, logs values to a trace buffer accessible via get_trace_log, and handles async method adjustments automatically. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with paragraphs explaining behavior, state, and async handling, followed by an args list. It is efficient and front-loaded but could be slightly more concise by merging some sentences.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and 3 required parameters, the description covers key aspects: purpose, state applicability, async behavior, and result storage. It could mention the return type or success indication, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (file: source file path, line: line number 1-based, expression: expression to evaluate) but lacks details like file path format or expression syntax rules, so it adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Set a non-stopping tracepoint that logs expression values.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_breakpoint and add_function_breakpoint by highlighting the non-stopping behavior and logging purpose.

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 mentions 'State: Works in any state' and addresses async state machines, providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with alternatives like breakpoints, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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