goclaw_trace_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] detailed trace,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed' entails (e.g., format, depth). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed trace') and adds specificity ('with individual LLM call spans'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly. There is no wasted verbiage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured trace data, more context would be helpful, but it's not entirely incomplete for a simple get operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'trace_id' documented as 'Trace ID.' The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the trace ID. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's information.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed trace with individual LLM call spans'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'goclaw_trace_list' by specifying it retrieves detailed information for a specific trace rather than listing traces. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other trace-related tools beyond the obvious list vs. get distinction.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'detailed trace' and mentioning 'individual LLM call spans,' suggesting this is for in-depth analysis of a specific trace. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'goclaw_trace_list' or other trace tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and description.

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