query_trace_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Query', which implies a read operation, but provides no detail about side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to the system state. The behavioral traits are largely undisclosed.

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 a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It is not verbose, but it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for usage, parameters, examples). Every sentence should earn its place, and this one barely does.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the query returns, how parameters interact, or what a 'historical trace file' is. The sibling tools provide no additional context, making this description insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information. Parameters like mode, limit, bucket_ms, search_query, and filter_object are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their meanings and valid values.

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 'Query' and the resource 'specific historical trace file'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_trace_files by specifying that it queries a particular file rather than listing files. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'query' entails (e.g., retrieving filtered traces, aggregations).

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_trace_files, trace_property_access, or other trace-related tools. There is no discussion of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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