get-span-annotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format with an example, mentions pagination via 'nextCursor', and describes that annotations can be created by humans, LLMs, or code. This is good behavioral context for a read-only tool.

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 concise, starting with the purpose, then a brief definition, followed by example usage and expected return. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to follow.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return format well. However, it lacks details on parameter usage and edge cases like missing spans or empty results.

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%. The description only indirectly references span_ids and project_identifier in examples, but does not explain include_annotation_names, exclude_annotation_names, cursor, or limit. Without schema descriptions, the tool's understanding of parameters relies heavily on examples, which is insufficient.

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 retrieves span annotations for given span IDs, explains what annotations are, and provides examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-spans by focusing on annotations rather than spans.

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 gives example usage scenarios, showing how to call the tool with span IDs and a project. It implies when to use it (to get annotations) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives.

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