get_behavioral_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It clearly explains what the tool returns and possible response statuses, and it implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not disclose rate limits or auth requirements, but the behavior is well-described.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence lists outputs, the second explains special statuses, and the third gives usage context. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values and statuses. For a 2-parameter tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand invocation outcomes without external documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example slug ('aider', 'opencode') and clarifying that omitting spec_version fetches the latest. This goes beyond the schema's default specification.

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 fetches behavioral evaluation traces for Hlido-reviewed agents, listing specific return fields (per-task pass/fail, adapter, behavioral tier, signed trace link) and statuses (not_yet_bench_tested, not_testable). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scorecard or verify_claim.

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 includes an explicit usage suggestion: 'Use this when you need evidence that an agent's coding/task behaviour has been independently verified beyond marketing claims.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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