correlate_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It accurately describes the core behavior (collecting events, chronological sorting) but does not disclose output format, error handling, or confirm the operation is read-only. This is a moderate disclosure level.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the verb, the resource, the mechanism, and the sorting order.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a moderately complex tool: it explains the main action and outcome. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explicitly state the return structure, and it omits details about edge cases (e.g., no matches found). Still, the core purpose is fully covered.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it only reinforces that multiple files and a trace ID are involved. It does not elaborate on optional parameters like idField or lineStartPattern, which the schema already covers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reconstruct') and resource ('distributed trace'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on collecting log events across multiple NDJSON files. It explains the method (matching trace/request ID, sorted chronologically) and is not a tautology.

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 a clear context: use this tool when you need to reconstruct a distributed trace from multiple NDJSON files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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