auto_suggest_missing_props

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the tool as suggesting missing props, which is non-destructive and read-only. However, it does not explicitly state safety guarantees or side effects (e.g., no mutations, no state changes). For a suggestion tool, the behavioral transparency is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 a summary paragraph and a bulleted 'Args:' section. It is informative without being excessively verbose. Minor improvement could be trimming redundant phrasing (e.g., 'This combines two signals').

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 no output schema, the description specifies the return value structure (dict with 'suggestions' and 'sandbox_template'). It explains the two input signals and references sibling tools for context. This provides a complete understanding of the tool's function and outputs.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all three parameters: trace_log (optional, source of entries), failed_replay_error (error string for hints), supplied_env (already supplied props to exclude). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 verb 'guess which props ... missing' and the resource 'Node-side VMP replay'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing related tools (trace_vmp_for_sign, replay_vmp_offline) and explaining the combination of trace log and curated list.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Given a trace log (or just an error string)'. It implies prerequisites by mentioning trace_vmp_for_sign and replay_vmp_offline, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond these referenced tools.

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