list-traces

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, pagination implications, or how filtering parameters interact, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 100%, so parameters like 'page', 'size', 'projectId' are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'list of traces', such as explaining how filtering works or parameter interactions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get a list of traces' states the basic action (get/list) and resource (traces), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'traces' are (e.g., execution traces, logging traces) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-trace-by-id' or 'get-trace-stats', missing specificity for a 4-5 score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-trace-by-id' for single traces or 'get-trace-stats' for aggregated data. The description lacks context about filtering capabilities or typical use cases, offering minimal help for selection.

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