get_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states what the tool does. It does not disclose behavior for invalid trace IDs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of the response. This is insufficient for a tool that returns detailed data.

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 brief (two sentences) but includes a redundant 'Args:' line that adds no value. It is acceptably concise but could be shortened without losing meaning.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the 'full details' include or the structure of the returned trace object. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema: it repeats the parameter name 'trace_id' and states 'The trace ID.' Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not clarify the format or constraints of the trace ID.

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 'Get full details of a trace including observations,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_traces' (which likely returns a list of traces without full details) by emphasizing 'full details.'

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_traces' or 'list_observations.' The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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