tempo_get_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what data is returned but says nothing about payload size/volume (complete traces with all spans could be very large), potential performance implications, whether partial data can be returned, or what happens if the trace ID doesn't exist. A 'get complete trace data' tool that returns potentially massive payloads should warn about size/truncation behavior.

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 sentence with zero waste. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and return scope. It could be slightly more structured with usage guidance added, but as-is it is concise and front-loaded with the key action ('Get complete trace data').

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 tool requires only one parameter (traceId) with 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, so complexity is low. However, without annotations or an output schema to describe the return payload, and with five sibling tools that overlap in purpose, the description leaves gaps around what distinguishes this from tempo_get_trace_spans and whether trace retrieval has size limits or error behaviors. Adequate but not complete.

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% (the single traceId parameter is described as 'The trace ID to retrieve'). The description adds the semantics that this ID retrieves 'complete trace data' with 'all spans', which provides modest additional value by clarifying the scope of the return. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clear verb+resource combination: 'Get complete trace data by trace ID.' It covers what data is returned ('complete trace data' including 'all spans with full details'). It distinguishes from sibling tools somewhat by emphasizing 'complete trace data' with 'full details', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tempo_get_trace_spans, which likely retrieves a subset of the same data.

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 usage: when you have a trace ID and want complete data. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or distinctions from siblings like tempo_get_trace_spans (which may be lighter-weight when only spans are needed) or tempo_search_traces (for finding traces by criteria). The distinction between complete trace data and span-specific retrieval is implied but not made explicit.

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