bourne_trace_artifact

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds a useful behavioral trait — 'without guessing across ambiguous matches' — but it does not explain what happens on ambiguity (returned matches, an error, or a disambiguation prompt). This keeps it slightly above the baseline but not fully transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the primary action, the target resource, and the expected output, ending with a caveat that carries meaningful behavioral value. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and an output schema already provided, the description covers the essential scope and behavioral guarantee. The main gap is path-format documentation, but the risk is moderate given the low complexity and the supporting structured metadata.

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 has one parameter, 'path', with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says the tool traces 'a recorded output artifact' and does not clarify whether path is a filesystem path, an artifact ID, a URI, or where the path comes from. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 names a specific verb ('trace') applied to a specific resource ('a recorded output artifact') and specifies the expected results: producer, inputs, and experiment ancestry. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like execution_get and inventory, which address different concerns.

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 given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description tells the agent what the tool does but not how to decide between this and related discovery/tracing tools, leaving the selection to inference.

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