get_behavioral_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool can return statuses like 'not_yet_bench_tested' and 'not_testable', and describes the data contained in the trace. This gives meaningful insight into the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and content. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple 2-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, possible return statuses, and the key contents of the trace. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it and interpret basic responses, though a bit more detail on the signed link format could be added.

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%, and the description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents 'slug' and 'spec_version' with examples and default behavior, so the description offers no additional semantic value for parameters.

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 ('Fetch') and the specific resource ('behavioral evaluation trace for a Hlido-reviewed agent'), and lists the trace contents (per-task pass/fail, adapter, tier, signed link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scorecard or get_incidents.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use this when you need evidence that an agent's coding/task behaviour has been independently verified beyond marketing claims.' It also mentions edge cases (not_yet_bench_tested, not_testable) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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