automations_get_script_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the trace includes 'steps, timing, action results', but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or that it is a read-only operation. Lacks full transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words. Efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 presence of an output schema, return value details are not needed. The description is mostly complete but could mention prerequisites like requiring a valid run_id from automations_list_script_traces.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for 2 parameters. The description only vaguely refers to 'a specific run' for run_id, but provides no explanation for script_id or parameter formats. Inadequate compensation for missing schema metadata.

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 script trace', and specifies the scope 'for a specific run'. It distinguishes this from similar sibling tools like automations_get_automation_trace by focusing on scripts.

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 usage context with 'for a specific run', indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like automations_list_script_traces for listing available run IDs.

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