Get one automation trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the underlying trace/get WebSocket command and the blocking round-trip behavior. It stops short of rich context (no error modes when the run_id is stale or missing).

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then uses tight labeled clauses (Not for / Returns / Limits) that each carry distinct information. No filler sentences and no repetition of the schema.

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 read-only trace fetch with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, this is complete: purpose, prerequisite routing, return shape, and blocking caveat are all present. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and both required params are documented in-schema, including the prefixed 'automation.<id>' form. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (full automation trace), and scope (for a specific run), with the content of the trace enumerated (steps, timing, condition results). An agent can distinguish it from list/get_last siblings without opening any schema.

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 names the exclusion ('Not for: finding which run_id to use') and routes the agent to two specific alternatives (automations_list_automation_traces, automations_get_last_automation_trace) with the condition that selects them. Nothing is left to inference.

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