explain

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

Though no annotations exist, the description correctly implies a read-only retrieval operation. It could be improved by explicitly stating idempotency or lack of side effects, but the current text is clear and not misleading.

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 sentences: first states the action, second lists returned fields. No fluff, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (prompt, cost, latency, etc.). Could add format or limit details, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'action_id'. The tool description adds no additional context to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve the full captured trace') and the resource ('for a single LLM call'), and enumerates specific returned fields (prompt, system prompt, tool calls, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools that handle sessions, runs, or search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_session' or 'search'. The context that it requires an 'action_id' from a header is implied but not compared to alternatives.

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