Session trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full weight. It discloses that the audit trail is bounded and includes redacted outputs, suggesting read-only behavior. However, it does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or whether session data might be destroyed. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 conveys the core information without waste. Every part is substantive.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description lists some return elements but does not specify return format, error behavior (e.g., missing sessionId), or how the bounding works. Adequate for a straightforward tool, but additional detail would improve it.

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 67%, with descriptions for sessionId and includeOutputs. The tool description adds no additional parameter context. The 'limit' parameter lacks a schema description, and the description does not compensate. Baseline is 3 for this coverage level.

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 shows a bounded chronological audit trail for a session, specifying its contents (prompts, memory IDs, redacted inputs/results, answers). This distinguishes it from memory management and chat siblings, which have different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage for inspecting session history, which is clear given the sibling context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the purpose is self-evident.

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