get_calls

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the burden is on added behavioral context. The description adds that long arrays and blobs are summarized and that calls can be read from a file via '@file.txt', giving useful expectations about output fidelity.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose and summarization behavior appear before the syntax reference. The syntax list is long but necessary for callset expressions and contains no wasted 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?

Complex callset syntax is covered in depth and an output schema is present. But the description doesn't define `trace`, `limit`, `max_list`, or `name_filter`, and doesn't situate the tool among siblings.

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?

Provides thorough semantics for the `calls` parameter with concrete callset syntax examples. Other parameters (limit, max_list, name_filter, trace) are not explained, and schema has 0% description 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?

States it returns structured calls with real argument values via apitrace pickle, making the core function identifiable. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast with dump_calls/search_calls, so differentiation is weaker than a top-tier description.

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 callset syntax and examples implicitly define when to use the tool: to select specific calls or ranges from a trace. However, it never states when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as dump_calls or search_calls, nor any exclusions.

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