cross_correlate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the scope ('across all projects'), which is useful, but it says nothing about return format, result limits, or what happens when neither/both identifiers are supplied — notable since both parameters are optional. That is a real gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier mechanism, with no filler or repetition. Every clause contributes information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover more ground. It explains what the tool does but omits how the optional identifiers interact (is one required? what if both are given?) and gives no sense of the result shape, leaving the agent to guess on call construction.

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% (runId as UUID, traceId as 32-char hex), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only the either/or relationship ('trace_id or run_id'), which is marginally useful but does not compensate for the unstated behavior when neither is provided. 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 and resource ('Correlate errors across services') plus the mechanism ('using trace_id or run_id') and the outcome ('cross-service error timeline'). It is clearly distinct from generic listing tools, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling sentry_search_by_trace, so the agent must infer the split.

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 'to build a cross-service error timeline' implies the scenario where this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to sentry_search_by_trace as the single-trace alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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