mark_trace_cursor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe) and idempotentHint=true (repeatable). The description adds that it works in any state, which is useful. It does not describe return behavior or side effects beyond marking, but annotations cover safety adequately.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by state info and parameter description. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects. It could explicitly mention the relationship to get_trace_delta for a more complete lifecycle context, but it is sufficient for a simple tool.

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% for parameter descriptions, but the description explains 'Optional tracepoint filter to bind into the cursor', adding meaning about the parameter's role as a filter and its effect on the cursor. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Mark the current tracepoint log boundary for later delta reads', specifying the verb 'mark' and resource 'tracepoint log boundary'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_trace_delta (reads the delta) and clear_trace_log (clears the log). The 'State: Works in any state' adds context.

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 implies usage before calling get_trace_delta (for later delta reads), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like runtime_smoke_mark_event_cursor, but the purpose is clear for the intended use case.

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