get_trace

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: failure on no matches, the per-trace span cap, and the semantics of truncated=true (early prefix). It stops short of naming the cap value or suggesting a follow-up when truncated, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is returned, what failure looks like, then the truncation caveat. No filler and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents (spans plus service.name), the error case, and the truncation edge case. Minor gaps remain around the cap size and span ordering, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single traceId parameter is fully documented in the schema (32-char lowercase hex). The description adds nothing beyond 'the given trace id', so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Return every span belonging to the given trace id') and additionally states the enrichment ('each span's resource service.name'). This clearly separates it from query_traces or list_trace_services, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the required traceId ('the given trace id'), and the error condition when no spans match is stated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over query_traces for trace lookup, nor any prerequisites mentioned.

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