get_execution_trace

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds the output structure (supervisor→subagents tree with phases, tool calls, cost per node), which is valuable. Minor gaps like invalid-id behavior are not disclosed, but the read-only and idempotent nature is well covered by annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the routing guidance in the second adds direct value without padding.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description explains what it does, what input it expects, what it returns, and which sibling to use in the alternative case. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing essential is missing for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, meaning the schema already fully documents root_execution_id as 'UUID da execução raiz'. The description reinforces its role in building the trace but adds no new parameter-specific details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('Trace') and resource ('execução multi-agente'), and specifies exactly what it produces: a hierarchical supervisor→subagents tree with phases, tool calls, and cost per node. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_session_agent_tree by explicitly stating when that tool should be used instead.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance (when you have root_execution_id) and explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Use get_session_agent_tree quando tiver o session_id em vez do execution_id'). This routes the agent to the correct sibling without relying on inference.

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