automations_get_last_script_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('fetch') but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if no trace exists or script_id is invalid). For a non-destructive read tool, the lack of such details is acceptable but minimal.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameter. It is front-loaded with 'Shortcut' to clarify intent. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has an output schema (likely defined elsewhere) and two parameters, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose. However, it lacks context on error handling, prerequisites, or how this tool relates to other trace-related tools. For a simple fetch tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions. The description only partially compensates by explaining the failed_only parameter ('most recent failed') and implying that script_id identifies the script. However, script_id format or constraints are not described, and the tool's core parameter is left unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with zero schema coverage.

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 is a 'Shortcut' to 'fetch the most recent (or most recent failed) trace for a script.' It specifies the verb (fetch), resource (trace for a script), and scope (most recent). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_script_trace (which fetches a specific trace by ID) and list_script_traces (which lists all traces).

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 when to use: when you want the most recent trace without specifying a trace ID, especially the most recent failed one via the failed_only parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of 'shortcut' and the parameter guidance is clear. For a simple fetch tool, this is adequate.

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