list_traces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'List' implies a non-mutating read, which is helpful. However, it discloses nothing about pagination, result ordering, default limit behavior, or any authorization requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a list-style tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the filtering note follows. Efficient, though it could afford one more clause to cover the limit parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are zero required parameters. Still, the description is incomplete: it references a nonexistent 'status' filter and never mentions the limit/pagination control, so an agent cannot fully parameterize the call from it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does name the agent and time-range (since) filters, but omits the 'limit' parameter entirely and cites a 'status' filter that does not exist in the schema — a mismatch that could mislead parameterization.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource ('List recorded AI agent runs (traces)') and clarifies that these are Pramana-captured traces. The plural 'traces' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_trace, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

It indicates the tool filters by 'agent, status or time range,' which implies the retrieval use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_trace or any other sibling. There is also no statement of prerequisites or when-not to use it.

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