list_traces

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does specify that limit has a maximum of 100, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as pagination details beyond 1-based page number, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (assumed but not stated).

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clear list of parameter descriptions. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancies or unnecessary text.

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?

Considering the 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters but lacks details about the response format (e.g., what fields each trace object includes) and pagination metadata. For a listing tool, this information is important for the agent to interpret results correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the docstring fully compensates by describing each of the 6 parameters: limit (max 100), page (1-based), user_id, session_id, name, and tags (filter by). These descriptions add meaning beyond the raw schema, though they are brief and lack examples.

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 'List traces with optional filters,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (traces), and mentions filtering. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trace (single trace) and list_sessions (different resource).

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. For example, it does not explain that get_trace retrieves a single trace by ID, or how list_traces differs from list_observations. The description only states optional filters without usage context.

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