run_trace

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description clarifies the output content: tool calls, argument summaries, durations, and errors. It also implies the tool requires a valid run_id from orchestrate, adding behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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: the first defines the tool's purpose concisely, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action, and efficiently structured.

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, the description adequately explains what the output includes. It also contextualizes usage relative to orchestrate and compact trace. Considering sibling tool 'trace', this description effectively distinguishes and completes the needed context for an agent.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating 'run_id from orchestrate'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional semantic depth is provided.

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 tool provides a full orchestration run trace with specific details (tool calls, arguments, durations, errors). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a compact trace by mentioning when to use it, and the verb 'run trace' combined with 'Full orchestration' gives a specific, actionable purpose.

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 directly advises using this tool after 'orchestrate' and when 'compact trace is not enough', providing clear guidance on when and why to choose it over alternatives. This is explicit and helpful for an AI agent.

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