list_spans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'matching a search query' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with large result sets (e.g., pagination via 'cursor'), rate limits, or authentication needs. The schema hints at pagination and sorting, but the description doesn't explain these behaviors.

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. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of spans') and adds necessary context ('matching a search query'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'spans' are, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a search tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool uses a search query, but doesn't elaborate on 'spans syntax' or how parameters interact. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('spans'), and specifies filtering via 'matching a search query'. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_dashboards' or 'list_incidents' beyond the resource type, and doesn't explain what 'spans' are in this 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 like 'list_metrics' or 'query_metrics'. The description implies it's for searching spans, but lacks context about typical use cases or prerequisites, such as needing specific data sources or permissions.

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