get_trace_window

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description mainly needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds 'bounded' and 'overlapping', which clarify limit and window-boundary semantics, but it does not discuss ordering, pagination behavior, or any hidden constraints.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, and it does not repeat structured schema or annotation information.

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 read-only, idempotent query with an output schema, the description plus annotations and schema cover the essential contract. Pagination and ordering are not explicitly described, but cursor, limit, and the output schema fill most of that gap.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the important parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the time-window concept, which is fine because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 action and object: returning bounded trace slices within a declared time window. This clearly distinguishes it from neighboring query tools like get_operation_window and get_frame_callers by focusing on time-windowed trace slices.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals. The name and wording imply a time-windowed trace query, but the agent is left to infer when this is the correct choice.

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