List Traces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as response format, pagination behavior, or potential side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but it does not go beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and then enumerates the optional filters. Every word contributes, with no repetition or filler. This is an ideal length for such a tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response will contain (e.g., a list of trace summaries, keys, ordering). However, for a simple list tool with comprehensive parameter schemas and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient, but there is room for improvement by stating the default pagination or the nature of the returned traces.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description summarizes the filter types (time range, agent, session, user, customer) but does not add meaningful syntax or usage details beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the pagination parameters fully, but those are already in the schema.

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 the tool lists agent execution traces and mentions optional filters, making the primary action and resource obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling trace-related tools like lyzr_ops_get_traces or lyzr_get_traces_dashboard, which could lead to ambiguity.

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 usage when the user needs a filtered list of traces, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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