load_trace

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: calling again replaces the trace, caching makes repeats near-zero-cost, error conditions for missing/invalid files and binary download failures, and content-sniffing for format detection.

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 clear sections (purpose, usage, parameters, errors) and front-loaded main action. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; minor redundancy in parameter description that mirrors schema.

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?

Provides comprehensive context including replacement behavior, caching, and error conditions. However, it does not explicitly mention return values (though absence of output schema makes this less critical). Missing a brief note on success outcome (e.g., 'sets the active trace for other tools').

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 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: absolute path requirement, file extension examples, content-sniffing behavior, and error handling nuances.

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 action ('Load a Perfetto trace file for analysis') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that other tools operate on the trace set here, indicating it is the entry point.

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 provides when to use ('starting any analysis session — call this first') and when not to use ('live trace capture' and 'streaming URLs'), offering clear context and exclusions.

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