openl Get Trace Node Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, informing the agent of safe, repeatable behavior. The description adds that the tool returns parameters, context, result, and errors, providing useful context beyond annotations, but does not disclose page limits or other potential behaviors.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and content, the second explains the source of node IDs. Both are essential and front-loaded with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the main output (parameters, context, result, errors) and key parameter dependency (node IDs from sibling tool). It lacks explanation of showRealNumbers and response_format options, but these are documented in the schema. Overall adequate for a retrieval tool with good annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage of 75%, the baseline is 3. The description provides additional context for the nodeId parameter by stating its source, but does not clarify showRealNumbers or response_format beyond what the schema offers. This slight addition keeps the score at 3.

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 it retrieves detailed trace node information including parameters, context, result, and errors. It uniquely identifies the resource (trace node details) and distinguishes from siblings like openl_get_trace_nodes (which lists nodes without details) and openl_get_trace_parameter (which retrieves a single parameter).

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 explicitly states that node IDs come from openl_get_trace_nodes, providing a clear prerequisite. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the context of sibling tools makes usage straightforward for a retrieval operation.

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