get_trace_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned fields (step count, tokens, latency, cost estimate, reasoning chain detection), which is important since there is no output schema. No auth or rate-limit context, but with annotations present this is solid.

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 compact sentences with the return contents front-loaded and an inline example. The example partly duplicates information already in the schema, but it is short and aids invocation.

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 two-parameter, read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of listing the returned metrics, and the schema documents both params. Missing only guidance on when to prefer it over sibling analysis tools.

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 both parameters (trace_id and model, including its default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates them in an example, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (summary of a trace) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: step count, tokens, latency, cost estimate, and reasoning chain detection. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_traces, compare_traces, or extract_reasoning_chain.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_traces or compare_traces, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the example payload.

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