tempo_get_span_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what is returned (count, avg/min/max/percentile durations) but omits important behaviors: relationship between limit and query parameters, what happens with no query specified, whether start/end are required in practice, time parsing format, or pagination behavior. For an aggregation tool with 6 optional parameters, this leaves significant uncertainty.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then specify return values. Zero filler or redundancy. Efficient and to the point.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable purpose and mentions the return value shape (count, durations). However, it doesn't cover parameter interactions (query vs tags, start/end formats, limit semantics), which would be valuable for an agent selecting parameters. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 every one of the 6 parameters is documented in the schema itself. The description adds the grouping concept (service/operation/status) which maps to the groupBy enum. However, the description doesn't clarify how query/tags interact, what 'Number of traces to analyze' means for aggregation sampling, or time format expectations, which would add genuine value beyond the 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 verb (Get), resource (spans), and action (aggregated statistics grouped by service/operation/status). It distinguishes from siblings like tempo_get_trace and tempo_search_spans by focusing on aggregation rather than retrieval of individual traces or spans. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as contrasts.

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 implies this is for retrieving aggregated stats versus other tracing tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling tools (tempo_search_spans, tempo_get_trace, etc.). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given. The grouping dimension gives some hint of usage context, but it's implicit rather than explicit.

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