Get Trace Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the summary contents (agent, LLM, tool call, token, cost), which clarifies what the returned data covers, though it does not describe response format or error cases.

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?

Single sentence with no filler; every word contributes meaning. The parenthetical list efficiently communicates the summary's 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?

Simple one-parameter read operation with strong annotations; the description enumerates the summary's content areas, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It doesn't address selection criteria, but that's captured in the usage dimension.

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?

The schema fully documents the single trace_id parameter with a description, and the description does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as the detailed summary for a trace, listing included data categories (agent, LLM, tool call, token, cost). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lyzr_get_trace_details, which is a close alternative.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only states what the tool does. Sibling tools such as lyzr_get_trace_details and lyzr_get_trace_gantt exist but are never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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