trace_tables

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value with the KEEP_TRACE=1 retention condition (the .trace may not exist otherwise). It does not disclose return shape, ordering, or behavior on a missing/unreadable trace.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the retention caveat is appended compactly. Nothing wasted.

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 1-param read with no output schema, the description names what is listed but never characterizes the result (table names? schema objects?) or the parameter's accepted form. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent would have to probe.

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?

The single `trace` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It hints that the value refers to a '.trace recording' but never states whether that is a path, filename, or handle, nor any format constraints.

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?

Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('data tables (schemas)') plus scope ('a .trace recording') makes the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-scoped sibling trace_query, but the noun 'tables' vs 'query' implies different outputs.

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 statement of when to use this versus trace_query, capture_summary, or the other trace siblings. The KEEP_TRACE=1 note is a useful precondition, but it is a caveat about the artifact, not usage routing.

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