audit_start_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a new trace is started and session info is returned, but does not mention side effects, whether this overwrites an existing trace, required permissions, or what 'trace session information' contains. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and return value concisely. Every word contributes. It earns points for efficiency, though it borders on under-specification. It is not verbose or cluttered.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what context/agentName/taskIntent are used for, what the session info includes, or how this integrates with the audit workflow. The sibling tools add context but the description itself lacks essential operational details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any of the three parameters (context, agentName, taskIntent) or their meanings. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare property names, leaving the agent to guess what these fields should contain.

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 action: 'Start a new audit trace' and its return value: 'return trace session information'. This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., audit_start_trace vs audit_record_event) beyond the start/record/end distinction, which is implicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, sequencing (e.g., use before audit_record_event), or exclusions. Given the sibling tools exist, this is a clear gap.

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