get_traces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral detail (the 200-line ring buffer bound), which gives an agent the size limit of available data. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the buffer retains or discards older lines, or the return shape beyond the buffer claim.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the buffer-bound detail appended where it is useful. No filler or redundancy.

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?

It is a low-complexity read tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, and the description adequately covers what it returns (trace lines, capped at 200). Only the absence of any routing versus sibling debug tools keeps it from a 5.

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 both the 'clear' and 'limit' parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (trace() output) and clarifies the return as a ring buffer of the last 200 lines. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from similar inspection siblings like get_errors or get_debugger_hits.

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 phrase 'from the running application' implies a debugging/live-inspection context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among the many debug siblings. Usage is left to inference.

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