List script trace summaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations do not: the tool blocks on a WebSocket round trip, and the return contains no step-by-step detail. Useful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 structured Returns/Limits sections. The content is efficient, though the return description is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists. No wasted sentences overall.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, yet the description still summarizes them (run_id, timestamps, script_execution) plus the blocking limit and the sibling alternative. Complete for a single-param read tool; only minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter (script_id) with 100% schema description coverage, including the bare-or-prefixed format. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies – the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (trace summaries / recent runs for a script), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling automations_get_script_trace. An agent can tell what it does and how it differs from the full-detail tool without opening either 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('use automations_get_script_trace for one run's full detail'), giving a clear condition that selects between summary listing and single-run detail. This mirrors the strongest calibration example's routing pattern.

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