Get the most recent automation trace

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), yet the description adds substantive behavior: the internal trace/list → trace/get sequence, exact error payloads ({"error": "no_traces"|"no_failed_traces"}), and the latency cost (two sequential WebSocket round trips). That is well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Labeled sections (Use when / Returns / Errors / Limits) keep it front-loaded and scannable, and every line carries information. It is slightly verbose in restating the internal call flow, but nothing is wasted padding.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain the trace payload, and it uses that space for errors, latency, and run-selection logic instead. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret failures.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the selection semantics of failed_only ('most recent whose script_execution isn't finished'), which sharpens an otherwise terse boolean flag.

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+resource ('fetch the most recent trace for an automation in one call') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling pair list_automation_traces/get_automation_trace by describing the two-step composition it collapses into one call.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('debugging "why didn't this fire?" without first listing traces and picking a run_id by hand'), which implicitly routes the agent away from the two-step workflow. It stops short of naming the sibling tools as alternatives, but the trigger condition is clear and specific.

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