get_app_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior (the result includes all spans), but it says nothing about permissions, whether the call is read-only (only implied by "Get"), size limits on span payloads, or not-found behavior. Moderate transparency for a read 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?

One front-loaded sentence gives the purpose, followed by a compact Args block. Efficient, though the Args entries partially restate what the schema titles already convey.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and both inputs are documented in the description. What's missing is how this tool relates to the listing siblings and how to obtain a valid trace_id – minor but real gaps for a 2-param 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% – the schema only supplies titles like "App Id" and "Trace Id". The description compensates by documenting both parameters with types and intent (the Scout APM application ID and the trace to retrieve), which is exactly the gap-filling needed here.

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 a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("an individual trace with all spans"), which distinguishes it from the plural listing siblings like get_app_job_traces and get_app_endpoint_traces by implying a single trace. The sibling differentiation is only implicit rather than named, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word "individual" hints that this is the single-trace counterpart to the sibling listing tools, but the description never states when to use this versus get_app_job_traces or get_app_endpoint_traces, nor any prerequisites such as where a trace_id comes from. Usage is only inferable.

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