trace_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that it includes a full JSONL event timeline and is the same execution as 'execute', but it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or performance implications. The execution nature implies code execution, but the safety profile remains unknown.

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 compact, starting with the primary purpose, then the differentiation, then a clean Args list. Every sentence adds information; only minor redundancy in the arg glosses.

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?

The description, combined with an output schema (which documents return values), covers the core functionality and arguments. It lacks clarifications on error behavior, permissions, or exactly when the trace output is beneficial, leaving some gaps for an agent. The presence of the output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral context is still thin.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's brief glosses (e.g., '実行するタスクの説明' for prompt) add basic meaning. However, some glosses are tautological (e.g., 'サンドボックスモード' for sandbox), providing limited extra value. It covers all parameters but without depth.

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 opens with 'Codex実行の全イベントトレースを返す' (returns all event traces of Codex execution), explicitly naming the resource and action. It further clarifies 'executeと同じ実行だが、全JSONLイベントのタイムラインも含む' which distinguishes it from the sibling 'execute' by adding the trace timeline. This clearly states what it does.

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 phrase 'デバッグ・分析用の詳細モード' explicitly identifies debugging/analysis as the intended use case, giving clear context for when to choose this over the standard 'execute'. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when-not-to-use, but the stated purpose is sufficient for most agents.

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