tracesStatements

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 operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is (e.g., list of statements, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool 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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'statements' are, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a retrieval tool in a trace-related context, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly without guessing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('id' as trace ID and 'options' as retrieval options). The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'options' might include (e.g., filters, formats) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Retrieves statements for a trace' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (statements for a trace), but it's vague about what 'statements' are (e.g., SQL statements, log entries, or other data). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList', which might list traces rather than their statements.

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. With siblings like 'tracesList' (likely listing traces) and 'tracesHitList' (possibly listing trace hits), the description lacks context for selection. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a trace ID from another tool.

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