trace_vmp_for_sign

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains signature-safe tap and record behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects like detection risks or whether it modifies page state. The phrase 'signature-safe' is positive but not elaborated.

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?

Well-structured docstring with Args and Returns sections. Each parameter explained concisely. Could be slightly more compact, but clear and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Description covers purpose and parameters, but missing details on return dict structure beyond 'condensed view'. No output schema, so more specific return format would help. Adequate for a specialized tool with clear context from siblings.

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%, but description explains all 6 parameters in detail (properties default, trigger_js usage, max_entries cap, track_calls for Date.now, clear_log, wait_ms). Adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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 it installs a signature-safe tap and records VMP reads. It distinguishes from siblings like detect_vmp, hook_jsvmp_interpreter, and trace_property_access by focusing on safe interception and logging.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to similar tools like trace_property_access or detect_vmp.

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