trace_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: completeness ('all spans') and ordering ('by start time'). However, it does not mention read-only behavior, error cases, empty results, or any limits on trace size.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior and ordering information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. However, it does not describe the shape of individual spans, how to source a trace_id, or how this tool relates to the sibling observability tools, leaving some context gaps.

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 only specifies trace_id as a required string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description implies trace_id identifies a distributed trace, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explain the format or how to obtain a valid trace_id.

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 identifies the resource: all spans of a single distributed trace, and adds ordering by start time. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as fts_search, recent_events, or service_graph. The description states only what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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