inventory_traces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation by stating 'Show complete inventory' and adds value by noting categorization by sensitivity level. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications for large inventories or any filtering limits beyond the optional project parameter.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and includes necessary context. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is a simple list operation with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully adequate. It explains what traces are shown (all on disk), how they are organized (by sensitivity level), and the optional filter (project path is implied but not repeated, though schema covers it). No additional context is needed for correct usage.

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% coverage for the single optional parameter 'project', which is described in the schema as 'Filter by project path'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate further. Score is baseline 3 as schema already documents the parameter well.

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 tool shows a complete inventory of traces, categorized by sensitivity level. It specifies the verb 'Show', the resource 'inventory of all traces', and the scope 'stored on disk, categorized by sensitivity level'. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like clean_traces or wipe_traces, which perform different actions.

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 usage when the user needs to view all stored traces and their sensitivity levels, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, and context for decision-making is missing.

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