List Ops Traces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds the filtering constraint (by agent and date range), which provides some useful context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or ordering, though the schema covers pagination 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and key optional filters in a scannable format.

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 simple list operation with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and filter capabilities, and the schema handles parameters. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or output format, but these are common for list tools and not critical. Given the presence of many trace-related siblings, a bit more differentiation would improve completeness, but it is not severely deficient.

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% with each parameter having a clear description. The main description adds a high-level summary of filtering (agent and date range) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the full 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 clearly identifies the action ('List'), the resource ('execution traces'), and the optional filtering scope ('by agent and date range'). This distinguishes it from non-list tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `lyzr_list_traces` or `lyzr_get_trace_details`, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

The description implies use when listing execution traces with optional filters, providing clear context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative trace-related tools (e.g., `lyzr_get_trace`, `lyzr_get_trace_summary`), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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