get trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by disclosing ordering, inclusion of aborted partial runs, the 409 flat-shape error, the need for request logging, and the absence of pagination/filters — all genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and use case, then efficiently covers endpoint, auth scope, return shape, ordering, errors, and exclusions. Every sentence carries information; none is filler, and the structure guides the agent from purpose to behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the detailed return JSON is essential and provided. The description covers prerequisites, error responses, ordering, trace grouping, differences from alternatives, and limitations, making the tool fully usable without further inference.

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 already describes traceId fully, including its X-Omnia-Trace-Id origin and the 404 behavior, so the parameter meaning is completely covered. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline score.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Fetch every logged step of one agent run or conversation' grouped by trace ID. It distinguishes this from related log tooling by emphasizing the ABORTED partial rows and the trace-scoped granularity.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for error analysis of a multi-step run, contrasts itself with /v1/logs, and notes that ABORTED partial rows are the finding. It also mentions prerequisites and error conditions, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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