get_exception_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns the trace with all observations and highlights errors, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention the behavior of the optional 'project' parameter, potential filtering, or any side effects beyond returning data.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or redundant details are present; every sentence contributes meaningful 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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it does anyway. However, it lacks context around the 'project' parameter and does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling trace-focused tools. For a simple get tool, it is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'project' parameter at all. It only alludes to 'trace_id' via 'specific trace.' Thus, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema for one of the two parameters.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('full exception/error details'), and the scope ('for a specific trace'). It also adds a meaningful output detail ('Returns the trace with all observations, highlighting errors'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_error_count or find_exceptions.

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 a use case (obtaining complete error details for a specific trace) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like fetch_trace or find_exceptions. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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