List EMQX Traces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the detail that results include status and expiry, but does not disclose behavioral aspects like whether expired traces are included, pagination, or ordering. It goes slightly beyond annotations but not substantially.

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 a single, concise sentence that contains no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: 'packet traces', 'defined on the broker', and 'with status and expiry'. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the core semantics. It clearly states what is being listed and highlights key included fields. The main gap is the absence of any mention of the full scope (e.g., 'all' traces) or edge cases, but these are not critical for such a simple operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 identifies the resource (packet traces on the broker) and the operation type via the title, adding specific detail about the returned data (status and expiry). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling trace tools like emqx_get_trace_log, emqx_create_trace, and emqx_delete_trace.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it lists all traces or when to use emqx_get_trace_log for log content. The description is purely declarative and lacks any contextual pointers.

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