get_request_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It correctly labels the operation as 'read-only' and describes the contents of the traces (proxied, acted on, outcome). This is transparent, though it could mention any side effects or access requirements, but none are apparent.

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 concise: two sentences plus a parameter detail. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or waste.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. The description explains what traces contain. For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, it is mostly complete. It could mention if ordering or other filters exist, but not necessary.

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 input schema has one parameter (limit) with no description. The tool's description adds significant meaning: 'max number of trace entries (1-200)', clarifying the range and purpose beyond the schema's default. It compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves recent request/operation traces for client's agents, specifying what is included (proxied, acted on, outcome). The verb 'get' in the name and the contextual detail distinguish it from siblings like get_agent_status or get_security_findings.

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 provides usage guidance for the 'limit' parameter (max 1-200), but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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