get_trace_window

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'bounded' and 'overlapping' semantics, but does not clarify pagination via cursor, ordering, or detailed boundary handling beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's action and scope.

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 strong annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate for basic selection. It omits pagination details, but those exist in the input schema, keeping overall completeness reasonably high.

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 80% (all parameters except cursor), so the schema carries most of the meaning. The description's 'overlapping' adds value by indicating slices crossing the window boundaries are returned, but cursor pagination semantics are left undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('bounded trace slices') scoped to a time window. It is clear and suggests a read operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_operation_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 time-window context implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_operation_window or extract_otlp_trace, nor any exclusions.

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