read_run_trace

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

The description details the trace structure and implies a read-only operation. No side effects are mentioned, but given no annotations, it is sufficient. Could add that it returns a list of entries.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the resource and its use. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 the simple parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (runId) with full schema coverage. The description does not add beyond the schema, but the schema is adequate. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it reads a run's chronological tool-call trace and lists the content (step, tool, arguments, output, error). It distinguishes from other run-related tools by focusing on the trace for debugging.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'to work out WHY a run behaved as it did.' It implies not for other run details, but does not mention alternatives. Still, the context is clear.

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