get_trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals a prerequisite (tracing provider) and implies read-only behavior via 'view', but does not disclose error handling, return format, or side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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?

Excellent verbosity discipline – a single short sentence front-loads the core function. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details, though the brevity leaves informational gaps.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more weight. It omits what the output looks like, what happens if the tracing provider is unavailable, and how this relates to find_slow_traces. Incomplete for reliable autonomous selection.

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%, but the description never mentions 'trace_id' or its format. It only implies the tool works on 'one trace' and relies on the schema's property name to connect the parameter. It does not explain what values are valid or how to obtain a 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 states 'Critical-path view of one trace' – a specific verb ('view') and resource ('trace') with a scope qualifier ('one'). It clearly signals a per-trace retrieval operation and is distinguishable from list/search siblings like find_slow_traces, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(needs a tracing provider)' is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. It does not mention when to prefer this over find_slow_traces or how to proceed when trace_id is unknown.

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