extract_reasoning_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the exact filtering heuristic: steps whose tool_name matches reasoning patterns or whose content includes 'think'. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover return format or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the matching logic and an example. Mostly efficient, but the example duplicates the schema's own example, which is slightly redundant.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned and the filtering rules. It could still mention response shape or ordering, but nothing critical is missing.

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% for the single trace_id parameter, including its own example. The description's example is redundant with the schema and adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what is already documented.

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 (Extract) and resource (reasoning/thinking steps from a trace). Clear purpose, but does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_trace_summary or trace_step, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. It states what it extracts but not when to prefer it over other trace-reading tools in the sibling set.

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