get_trace_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope (for an APM service datasource) but does not add any behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior or result format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as it adds minimal value.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no extraneous information and is highly efficient.

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 simple listing tool with well-described parameters and safety annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, and the schema explains all parameters. No output schema is present, but the description's implication of returning a list of operations is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, and each parameter (service_id, device_datasource_id, limit, name_filter) has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('operations (endpoints/routes) for an APM service datasource'). It distinguishes from sibling trace tools like get_trace_service_datasources (lists datasources) and get_trace_service_metrics (lists metrics) by focusing on operations.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to list operations for a given service and datasource), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use get_trace_operation_metrics for metrics' or 'not for listing services.' So usage guidance is implied, not explicit.

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