list_mass_traits

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that: results are returned in config order and the self-vs-inherited scoping is called out, which is meaningful non-annotation context. It does not address pagination or large-config behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the return shape is stated twice - once inline ('Returns config_path, trait_count and traits [{class, name}]') and again as a trailing 'Returns:' line - which is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description steps up to describe the return payload, and annotations cover safety, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only gap is that ordering semantics (config order) are stated but not why it matters, leaving the agent slightly under-informed on edge cases.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the schema already documents config_path fully. The description names config_path only as a return field, adding nothing new about the input, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (mass traits) scoped precisely to traits the config asset holds itself rather than those inherited from its parent. This distinguishes it from list_mass_trait_types and get_mass_trait_property without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes mutation to siblings: 'edit them with add_mass_trait, remove_mass_trait and set_mass_trait_property,' which cleanly frames this as the read counterpart. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_mass_trait_property, so it lacks full when-not coverage.

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