goclaw_trace_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a listing operation (implying read-only behavior), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in the description.

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 moderate complexity (listing with filtering), 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but leaves significant gaps about behavioral characteristics and output format. For a listing tool with filtering capabilities, more context about result format and behavioral constraints would be helpful.

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 three parameters with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 action ('List') and resource ('LLM execution traces') with additional context about what data is included ('with cost and token usage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'goclaw_trace_get' by indicating it's a listing operation rather than retrieval of a single trace. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations in the system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to other trace-related tools (like 'goclaw_trace_get') or other listing tools in the system. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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