send_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the fan-out behavior when endpoints are omitted, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output schema might contain, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 main purpose, followed by key details in a logical flow. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and span structure but misses details on parameters like 'service_name', mutation implications, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the structure of 'spans' (e.g., fields like 'name', 'kind', 'attributes') and the optional 'endpoints' behavior, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't cover 'service_name' or 'resource_attributes' in detail, but provides enough context for core usage.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('spans to targeted endpoints'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_log' or 'send_metric' beyond mentioning 'traces' in the context.

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 for sending trace data to endpoints, with a note about default behavior when 'endpoints' is omitted. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'send_log' or 'send_metric', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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