obs_search_traces

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search Tempo traces' without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. It doesn't even explicitly say it's a read operation, though 'search' implies it. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 very concise: one sentence plus an example. It's front-loaded with the action and the example is practical. There's no wasted text, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with three parameters. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'limit' or 'session_name', nor any usage prerequisites or behavior expectations. An agent would have to guess at the semantics of these parameters, making the tool risky to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives an example for the 'tags' parameter, which is useful, but does not explain 'limit' or 'session_name' at all. With three parameters and only one hinted at, the description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Search Tempo traces') and resource, so an agent knows what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like obs_get_trace, which might retrieve a single trace, or obs_query_logs for logs. The purpose is clear but not scoped against alternatives.

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 obs_get_trace or obs_query_logs. The example provided ('tags example') is about parameter format, not usage context. The agent is left to infer when to use it.

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