extract_trace_metadata_strict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it reveals handling of .pwtrace.zip extensions, multi-retry archives (identifies which retry failed), and all three HAR modes. It also states it confirms trace validity. It does not detail error behavior on invalid traces, but for a read-only inspection tool, the disclosure is substantive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, then expands with relevant edge-case details and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

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 covers what the tool returns (format version, retry breakdown, HAR mode), when to use it, and key compatibility aspects. It lacks an explicit statement of return format/error behavior, but given the single-parameter schema and read-only nature, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter trace_path with a description ('Absolute path to trace.zip, or a URL (https://) to download it from'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning .pwtrace.zip compatibility, which is more about tool behavior than the parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Strictly inspects a Playwright trace archive and returns format version, retry session breakdown, and HAR payload mode.' It uses a specific verb ('inspects'), identifies the resource ('Playwright trace archive'), and enumerates specific outputs. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a preflight validation tool ('Use before other trace tools').

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use before other trace tools when the archive may be from an unfamiliar Playwright version or CI configuration — confirms the trace is valid and tells you what data is available.' This tells the agent when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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