extract_otlp_trace

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

The annotations do not provide positive behavioral hints, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the input must be an explicitly registered artifact and that the output is evidence tables, but it does not explain side effects, whether existing evidence is overwritten, or any other mutating behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no positive annotation hints, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, this definition is incomplete. The purpose is clear, but an agent lacks enough information to confidently construct the artifact_id/run_id arguments or understand prerequisites.

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 does not clarify how run_id and artifact_id relate to the 'explicitly registered OTLP file artifact.' The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description fails to explain which registered artifact should be supplied or why artifact_id is optional.

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 states a specific verb ('Normalize'), a specific resource ('an explicitly registered OTLP file artifact'), and a specific outcome ('into evidence tables'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling extract_* tools by naming the OTLP artifact type.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when there is an explicitly registered OTLP file artifact that needs normalization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the OTLP-specific scope makes the usage context unambiguous.

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