trace_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic read-only nature ('List'), the recency scope, and the 'without raw content' return limitation, but it leaves key behavioral aspects unexplained such as how 'correlated' is defined, ordering, pagination, and what fields are actually returned.

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 an efficient single sentence with a front-loaded verb and no filler. It is appropriately compact, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and behavioral context.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It supports a default unfiltered call but leaves nearly all filtering semantics, result shape, and correlation meaning to the agent's inference.

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 0% across 7 parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. An agent cannot tell what 'before' refers to, what status values are accepted, or how 'session'/'provider' filter the correlated traces. The description adds no value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 states a specific action ('List') on a clear resource ('recent correlated tool traces') and explicitly notes the absence of raw content, which distinguishes it from sibling trace_get. Even without naming the sibling, the 'without raw content' qualifier tells an agent this is the metadata-oriented list counterpart.

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 this tool is for browsing recent trace metadata rather than retrieving full trace content, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over trace_get or other trace-related tools. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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