jaeger_get_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so behavior is well-covered. The description adds useful context like error span identification ('tags["error"] = "true"'), return structure details (services, execution_tree), and API endpoint mapping. 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, API endpoint, return details, examples, and don't-use guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. The examples are concise yet informative.

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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema described in the description (listing all return fields), the description is complete. It covers all necessary information for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed constraints (pattern, minLength, maxLength, description). The description repeats the format and examples but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve full trace detail with all spans, service breakdown, and execution tree.' The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'full trace detail' are specific. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like jaeger_search_traces (which finds traces) and others by explicitly contrasting use cases.

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?

Explicit examples of when to use (e.g., 'Why is trace abc123... slow') and when not to use (e.g., 'Don't use when: You don't have a specific traceID — use jaeger_search_traces to find one first') are provided. Alternatives are named clearly, and the examples demonstrate suitable scenarios.

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