get_trace_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists the outputs (span tree, timing information), which is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is idempotent or has no side effects.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the action and outputs. There is no redundant information, and every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context. It explains the purpose and output (span tree, timing), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Could include more details about the span tree structure, but not necessary.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as 'organization_slug' and 'trace_id' are already well-defined. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve'), the specific resource ('trace details'), and key outputs ('span tree and timing information'). It also differentiates from sibling tools (get_issue_details, search_issue_events) by focusing on distributed system performance analysis.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for analyzing distributed system performance,' which gives context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer alternative tools, though the differentiation from sibling tools is implicit.

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