trace_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load, and it does disclose the read-only nature and the ordered structure of the returned data. However, it does not explain truncation behavior, content inclusion, or what the response looks like beyond the high-level output.

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 well-formed, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's core purpose.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain more of the invocation context. It identifies what is returned but omits how max_chars affects the result, when include_content should be true, and what 'artifact references' concretely include.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only implies trace_id via 'one trace'. max_chars and include_content are left entirely unexplained, and the description adds no semantic detail beyond what the parameter names already suggest.

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 specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('ordered events and artifact references for one trace'). It distinguishes trace_get from sibling tools like trace_list by emphasizing a single trace and its ordered event/artifact content.

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 guidance is given about when to use trace_get instead of trace_list, context_read, or session_peek. The description implies use for reading a trace's details, but it never states selection criteria, exclusions, or alternatives.

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