query_traces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares 'Behavior: read-only', explains filter behavior (native query language per backend), errorsOnly effect, and default limit. This sufficiently discloses key behavioral traits.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main action, then follows with usage guidelines, prerequisites, and behavior details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, behavior, and parameter details. It could optionally elaborate on the return format's structure, but it is sufficiently complete for a query tool.

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%. The description adds meaning by explaining the service name provenance (from list_services), interpretation of 'filter' (backend-dependent), and that 'limit' is a soft cap. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Query distributed traces' and specifies the resource (traces for a service). It lists the returned outputs (duration, span count, error status, p50/p95 aggregate). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like query_logs and query_metrics.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (tail-latency outliers, call chains, anomaly follow-up) and prerequisites (service name from list_services, configured connector). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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