get_automation_trace

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns trace details (trigger, conditions, actions, errors), implying a read-only retrieval. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or potential errors, but the behavior is straightforward.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating purpose, a brief Args section, and one example. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, return content, and usage example. It lacks error handling or prerequisites but is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose: automation_id with example, run_id as coming from list_automation_traces, and domain with default and allowed values. A usage example further clarifies parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed trace for a specific automation run', including components like trigger, conditions, actions, errors. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_automation_traces which list runs.

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 provides a clear retrieval context, noting that run_id comes from list_automation_traces. It includes a default domain and an example call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond the implicit sequence.

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