trace_slowest_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'return,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose the scope of spans queried, the sort direction implied by 'slowest,' or the effect of the default limit. These behavioral details are left to inference.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded. It borders on under-specification, but for a simple one-parameter tool the brevity is acceptable.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there is only one optional parameter, so complexity is low. However, the description omits scope (which spans are considered) and the ordering semantics of 'slowest,' leaving gaps that an agent would need to guess.

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% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The burden falls on the description to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, and it fails to do so, even though the single parameter is fairly self-explanatory from its name and default value.

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 states a specific verb ('return'), a well-defined resource ('slowest spans'), and an explicit criterion ('by latency_ms'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like trace_failed_tools (failed tools) and trace_token_cost (cost), so an agent can tell them apart at a glance.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trace_failed_tools or trace_token_cost, and there is no mention of scope (e.g., within a run vs across all runs) or prerequisites. The when-to-use context is entirely absent.

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