http_trace

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

The description only states what the tool does and gives no information about side effects, safety, idempotency, or whether it is read-only. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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, clear sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

Given there is no output schema and the tool is a straightforward HTTP method, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It omits details about response handling, error behavior, and the practical implications of the many configurable parameters (e.g., force_store_response_content), which could leave an agent uncertain in complex scenarios.

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 100% (all 11 parameters are described in the input schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning, constraints, or relationships beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('HTTP TRACE request') with a clear target (specified URL), instantly distinguishing it from sibling http_get, http_post, http_delete, etc. 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?

While 'for diagnostic tracing' hints at a use case, the description does not explicitly state when to choose TRACE over other HTTP methods, nor does it mention alternatives or conditions under which it should be avoided.

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