get_trace

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

There are no annotations, so the description must shoulder the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that results are ordered by start time and that it returns every span, but it omits critical behavioral details such as pagination, response format, error handling, or time-range limits. Since this is a read-only retrieval, the safety profile is inferred, but the lack of concrete details about the output and edge cases leaves significant gaps.

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, concise sentence (12 words) that immediately conveys the core function. It front-loads the key information and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it an ideal example of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details about the return structure (e.g., what a span consists of), potential limitations, or how it handles missing traces. It is adequate for basic understanding but misses important contextual information that a complex observability tool might require. The schema helps with parameters, but the absence of output schema and richer behavioral context leaves the description minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (stream, end_time, trace_id, start_time) with clear explanations. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither enhances nor detracts from the 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get every span of a single trace, ordered by start time.' It specifies the action (get), the resource (spans of a single trace), and a distinguishing detail (ordered by start time). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'search_traces', which likely finds traces rather than retrieving all spans of a known trace.

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 description implies the usage context: when you have a specific trace ID and need all its spans. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like 'search_traces' for finding traces. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit alternative guidance, which prevents a 5.

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