extract_otlp_trace

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds the prerequisite 'explicitly registered' and the result 'evidence tables', which is useful but not rich. It does not disclose side effects such as table overwriting or whether the artifact is consumed.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key prerequisite without redundancy.

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?

The description is concise and works with the existing annotations and output schema, but it lacks explicit parameter guidance and usage context. The 'explicitly registered' prerequisite is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 explain the meaning or relationship of run_id and artifact_id. The phrase 'registered OTLP file artifact' hints at artifact_id but provides no guidance on how run_id is used, making it insufficient for low coverage.

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 action ('Normalize'), the specific resource ('OTLP file artifact'), and the outcome ('into evidence tables'). It also 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 implies usage when an explicitly registered OTLP file artifact needs normalization, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract_inference_trace or extract_perfetto. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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