run_summary

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 implies a read-only, abbreviated result via 'compact summary', but says nothing about prefix ambiguity handling (what if the prefix matches several runs), permissions, or 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?

A single tightly written sentence with zero filler and the resource stated first. It may be slightly too terse given the naming mismatch between 'run' and 'trace_id', but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a single-parameter tool is low complexity. Still missing is any when-to-use framing versus the eleven sibling tools and clarification of the run/trace_id relationship, which leaves the agent guessing at selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so on the one point that matters: trace_id accepts a prefix, not just an exact ID. That is genuinely non-obvious from the schema, though format, minimum length, and ambiguity behavior remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb (summary) and resource (one run), and the word 'compact' signals the output shape. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like compare_runs or list_runs, and it uses 'run' while the parameter is named trace_id, leaving a small terminology gap.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as compare_runs, list_runs, or span_tree. The only usable hint is the parenthetical about trace_id prefixes, which is a calling detail rather than usage guidance.

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