List automation trace summaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered, and the description adds genuinely new context: the WebSocket round trip blocks, and only summary data is returned. It says nothing about default limits or pagination of the trace list, which would complete the picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, alternative, and limits in a tight structured block. The 'trace/list WebSocket command' detail is slightly implementation-heavy but small and useful for transparency.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't re-document return values, yet it briefly characterizes the summary fields and disclaims step-by-step detail, plus notes the blocking behavior. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call 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% and the schema already documents the bare-or-prefixed 'automation.<id>' format, so the baseline is 3. The description only names the parameter in the context of the underlying WebSocket command and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List trace summaries (recent runs) for an automation') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling automations_get_automation_trace, which returns one run's full detail. An agent can tell it apart from both the get and the get_last variants without opening a 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 the agent to automations_get_automation_trace when step-by-step detail for a single run is needed, which is exactly the sibling-selection decision this tool faces. It conveys the summary-vs-detail context clearly, though it doesn't state any prerequisite or when-not condition for listing traces.

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