get_traces_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a summary and lists content, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like query behavior limits, pagination, or cost. The description is straightforward but not deep.

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, with bullet points for return items and clear args listing. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks details on how the query parameter affects results or any filtering nuances. For a tool with 0% schema coverage, more contextual information is needed for complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely restates 'project_id: Project ID' and 'query: Search/filter query (optional)', adding minimal value beyond the schema. The query parameter's filtering behavior is not explained.

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 distributed tracing overview' and lists specific items like trace volume, trends, error rates, etc. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_application_traces by focusing on an overview across all applications.

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 usage for getting a cross-application summary, but does not explicitly guide when to use this versus alternatives like get_application_traces. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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