get_trace_logs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the single-trace scoping and the notable caveat that the Classic API v2 has no trace endpoint, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what happens when a trace id yields no logs.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope stated up front and no filler. The second sentence is cryptic but does not bloat the definition.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent knows enough to pass a trace_id and get log lines back. Missing are the return shape characteristics (volume, ordering, empty results) and any note on how the default 24-hour window interacts with trace selection.

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%, so all four parameters (trace_id, from_time, to_time, attribute) are already documented with defaults and formats. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 correct here.

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 phrase 'Log lines for one distributed trace / PurePath' names a specific resource (log lines) and a precise scope (a single trace), which separates it from the sibling search_logs without naming it. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative such as search_logs when a trace_id is unavailable. The required trace_id parameter implies the precondition, but the agent must infer it; the sentence about the Classic API v2 is an implementation remark, not usage guidance.

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