traid_client_context

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole burden. "Devuelve" implies a read-only operation and the fallback to TRAID_CLIENT_SLUG is disclosed, but nothing is said about what happens when neither slug nor env var exists, whether a wrong slug errors or returns partial data, or permission/auth requirements. The field list partially compensates for the missing output schema, but behavioral edges remain undisclosed.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose and payload first, then the default-slug behavior, then the usage trigger. Nothing is padded, though the slug fallback is stated twice (once in prose, once implicitly in the schema), a small redundancy.

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 usefully enumerates the returned metadata fields and explains the env-var fallback for the only parameter. Given the low complexity (one optional param, no nesting), this is close to complete; only error behavior when no client resolves is missing.

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% for the single optional parameter, and the schema itself already documents the TRAID_CLIENT_SLUG fallback. The description restates that fallback as "auto-detect" but adds no new syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, 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?

"Devuelve metadata operativa del cliente TRAID actual" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the returned data (seller_ids, schema Supabase, n8n folder, repos, bloqueantes). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all e-commerce operations (orders, prices, stock, ads), though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Usar al arrancar sesión Claude en un proyecto cliente para cargar contexto sin parsear archivos" gives a concrete triggering condition (session start in a client project) and the motivation (avoid parsing files). It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative to use instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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