privacy_check_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine framing by enumerating the many leakage channels it inspects, which signals breadth (a behavioral trait not visible elsewhere). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what cost/latency to expect, or what permissions are needed to read the trace.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the trigger condition. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a tool whose sole input is a loose, undocumented nested trace object, the description omits any guidance on input format, leaving a real gap given the complexity of the analysis being requested.

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 single 'trace' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is typed as a fully open object (additionalProperties: true), so the schema explains nothing. The description never describes what a trace must contain or its expected shape, leaving the agent unable to construct the argument from either source.

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?

States a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('one agent run for privacy leakage') and enumerates the channels examined (tool calls/responses, shared memory, inter-agent messages, logs, files, final answer). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like privacy_scan_code and privacy_redact by scoping to a captured run, but never names them, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use when you have captured a run and want to know whether data escaped on a channel nobody reads' gives a clear trigger condition tied to having a trace in hand. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives to distinguish it from privacy_preflight or privacy_scan_code.

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