get_operation_window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: spans are 'normalized' and selected by overlap with the window rather than containment. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with zero waste; the verb and the core operation semantics are front-loaded. Every word earns its place and nothing could be trimmed.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and covers return values, the definition omits pagination behavior (cursor/limit), the role of artifact_id, and any differentiation from the closely related trace/span tools in the sibling list. For a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, this is under-specified.

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%, so the description bears the full burden. It clarifies that start_ns and end_ns form a 'bounded time range' and that spans must overlap it, but it says nothing about artifact_id, trace_id, limit, or cursor, leaving four of six parameters unexplained.

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 ('Return'), a clear resource ('normalized OTLP spans'), and a precise matching semantic ('overlapping a bounded time range'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate it from near siblings like get_trace_window, extract_otlp_trace, or get_operation_transitions, which all operate on trace/span data.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many similar siblings in the same domain. The only usage context is implied by the name and the phrase 'bounded time range'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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