automations_list_script_traces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the operation is a list, missing details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or pagination. The input format hint is helpful but incomplete for behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences (15 words) to convey the purpose and parameter format. It front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate for a simple listing tool. It mentions 'recent runs' and parameter format. It could be improved by noting that it returns a list of trace summary objects, but this is covered by the output schema.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by noting that script_id accepts bare IDs or 'script.<id>' format, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain what a script_id is or how to obtain it, leaving some ambiguity.

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 lists trace summaries (recent runs) for a script, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like automations_get_script_trace and automations_get_script_config, as those deal with individual traces or configurations.

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 for listing summaries, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like automations_get_script_trace for detailed traces. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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