list_traps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no side-effect warnings are needed. The description adds scoping ('every trap this server checks') and output-field details, which is useful context beyond the annotations; there is no contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource scope, and key output fields are all stated immediately and efficiently.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states exactly what is returned and the annotations cover the safety profile. No prerequisites, caveats, or hidden behaviors are 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description therefore does not need to explain parameter meaning and instead clarifies what payload fields the caller can expect in the result.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('every trap this server checks') and the returned fields (id, title, default severity). This distinguishes it from siblings like explain_trap, which would focus on a single trap, and audit_manifests, which targets manifests rather than traps.

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 intended use case is clear: call this when you need to enumerate all traps the server checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope is obvious and no exclusions are needed for a parameterless list.

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