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, and it does disclose the payload shape (all spans with attributes, parsed OpenTelemetry data for LLM operations). It omits any read-only framing, error behavior for an unknown/expired trace ID, or size/truncation characteristics, which matters for a tool that returns an entire trace.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is compact. The Args/Returns boilerplate duplicates what the schema and output schema already convey, costing a little efficiency.

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 explaining return values is redundant but harmless, and the description's core claim (full trace with spans and parsed OTel data) is adequate. It leaves gaps around failure modes and the read-only/non-destructive nature that an agent would want before invoking a whole-trace retrieval.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description only restates the parameter as 'Trace identifier', adding no format, origin, or example information beyond the schema. With one parameter on which lookup success depends, this is under-specified.

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 + resource ('Get complete trace details') and the retrieval key ('by trace ID'), which cleanly separates it from the search-oriented sibling search_traces. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_traces or search_spans_tool, and no prerequisite or exclusion conditions are stated. The 'by trace ID' phrasing implies a lookup use case, but the agent must infer that from the name and schema alone.

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