mxa_read_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds that output is in ASCII format, which is a helpful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other traits like whether the read is destructive or if it requires a prior measurement. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that delivers the core function without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 that the tool has 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but covers the primary action. However, it does not elaborate on what data points are returned or how the parameters affect the read. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required, but more context about the tool's role in the measurement workflow would be beneficial.

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%, and the description provides no information about the two parameters ('alias' and 'params_json'). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent with no clues about parameter purpose or format.

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 verb '读取' (read) and the resource '当前迹线的数据点' (current trace data points) with format 'ASCII 格式'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mxa_read_marker_x/y which read specific marker values, and other mxa tools for configuration.

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 vs alternatives such as mxa_fetch_harmonics or mxa_read_marker_x. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The description lacks explicit usage context.

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