Afficher la chronologie d'une trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly conveys the read-only nature and the type of data returned, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any permissions required.

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, no unnecessary words. First sentence defines the action and output, second sentence states the use case. Highly 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 3 parameters, no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the content of the response. All sibling tools are distinct, and the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (spans, duration, statuses, tokens, cost), giving deeper meaning to the trace_id parameter, though it could elaborate on response_format and project filtering.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reconstructs the full timeline of an agent trace, listing specific components (spans, duration, statuses, tokens, cost). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like obs_events_search or obs_metrics_summary which focus on different aspects.

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 explicitly mentions it is useful for understanding why an execution failed or was slow, providing clear context. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparisons to alternatives.

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