get_application_traces

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

The description warns that responses can be very large (100k+ tokens), which is key behavioral information. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is valuable, though it could mention read-only nature or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured: a concise summary, followed by a warning, then a clear parameter listing. Every sentence adds value, and the warning is highlighted appropriately.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral warning, and parameter details thoroughly. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All 6 parameters are explained beyond the schema. The description adds context for each, such as formatting for app_id and recommendations for timestamps, fully compensating for 0% schema description 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 it retrieves distributed tracing data for an application, specifying request flow and dependencies. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_application_logs and get_traces_overview by focusing on traces.

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 includes a warning about large responses and recommends using time filters or trace_id to limit data. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools for when to use this one over others.

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