get_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ('full trace data including all spans'), which is useful, and 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior when the ID is missing or unknown.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses a compact Args/Returns structure. No filler, though the Args line adds little beyond the schema.

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 need not be explained, yet the description still largely covers them. For a single-parameter read tool it is adequate, but the absence of any usage routing to sibling search_traces leaves a gap.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as 'trace_id: Trace identifier', which merely restates the parameter name. No format, source, or example of a valid trace ID is given, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (complete trace details) scoped by ID, and the mention of 'full trace data including all spans' clarifies the granularity. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search_traces, but the 'by ID' scoping makes the resource clear.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies a trace identifier is required, which loosely separates it from search_traces, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. An agent has to infer that this is the retrieval step after a search.

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