get_trace

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

The description discloses the output contents (spans, tool/LLM calls, guard triggers, errors), which is helpful for a read operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it covers the expected behavior well, though it could mention potential performance implications or required permissions.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details. No extraneous words.

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 tool with low complexity (1 required param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and output. Minor gap: could mention if the output is paginated or if there are limits, but not critical.

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?

The single parameter 'trace_id' is fully described in the schema with 'The trace ID to look up'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 retrieves the full event tree for a specific trace using its trace ID. It lists the components of the tree (spans, tool calls, LLM calls, guard triggers, errors), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'query_traces' or 'get_trace_decisions'.

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 implies usage when you have a trace ID and want a detailed view, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_traces' or 'get_trace_decisions'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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