BugSnag: List Trace Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context about return type (array of field names and types) and that trace fields are custom attributes, enhancing 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?

Well-structured with sections for purpose, toolset, parameters, use cases, examples, and hints. Each sentence adds value, no 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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: explains return shape, provides an example, and gives usage hints.

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 description explains the projectId parameter's optionality and side effect of setting the current project, adding significant value beyond the input schema description.

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 it 'Get available trace fields/attributes for filtering' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'bugsnag_list_project_event_filters' by focusing on trace fields, and use cases further clarify purpose.

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?

Provides use cases and hints indicating when to use (e.g., 'Build dynamic filters based on available fields', 'Use these fields for filtering other performance queries'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives.

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