get_expression_traces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It clearly states the tool is read-only by describing what it shows (traces) and does not mention any side effects. It adds context about required fields for Standard SKU, which is helpful.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Get...') and efficiently conveys what the tool does, what it includes, a conditional requirement, and its primary use case.

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 no output schema, the description gives a reasonable hint of the return shape (expression text, result, errors). It covers the essential behavioral and usage context. While it could mention pagination or list format, the tool is simple enough that this is sufficient.

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 100%, so the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the conditional requirement for workflowName in Standard SKU and giving examples of expressions (@body(), @variables()). This helps an agent understand the parameter semantics more deeply.

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's purpose: 'Get expression evaluation traces for an action.' It specifies what is shown (expression text, result value, errors) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_action_io by focusing on expression evaluation rather than inputs/outputs.

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 indicates when to use this tool: 'Essential for debugging expression failures.' It also provides a prerequisite: 'For Standard SKU, workflowName is required.' While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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