get_operation_window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds the 'bounded time range' overlap behavior, but does not explain normalization semantics or pagination behavior (limit/cursor), which would add value beyond 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

With a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate for a simple read-only query. However, missing context about pagination (limit/cursor), what 'normalized' means, and the relationship to artifact_id leaves gaps for a tool with six parameters and potentially complex filtering.

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 compensate by explaining any of the six parameters. While parameter names like start_ns, end_ns, and artifact_id are self-explanatory, the tool description adds no semantics, and terms like 'normalized' and 'overlapping' are not tied to parameter behavior.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('normalized OTLP spans'), and a scope ('bounded time range'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_trace_window or get_operation_transitions by focusing on normalized OTLP spans within a time window.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with similar trace/operation tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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