tracesHitList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for full clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of a tool that retrieves data for traces (implied from sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'hit list' is, the return format, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for proper use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('id' and 'withSystemEvents'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the significance of 'hit list' in relation to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('hit list for a trace'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'hit list' entails (e.g., list of database hits, events, or errors) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesStatements', making it vague in context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tracesList' or 'tracesStatements'. The description implies usage for a specific trace but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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