trace_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations — that raw trace content is excluded from results — but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or result size.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

Seven unlabeled optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotation gaps filled — an agent has no way to learn what 'project', 'session', or 'provider' accept or how paging works. For a filter-heavy list tool this is substantially incomplete.

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?

All 7 parameters (tool, limit, before, status, project, session, provider) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: not one filter, the limit cap, or the 'before' cursor is explained. Only the word 'recent' weakly hints at time-ordered retrieval.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('correlated tool traces') plus a scope qualifier ('without raw content'), which distinguishes it meaningfully from trace_get's single-trace retrieval. It never names trace_get, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 rather than trace_get, session_peek, or stats, and no prerequisites or filtering conditions are described. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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