get_known_traps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the return format and states 'Newest first'. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has no side effects. The term 'Return' implies a read operation, but more direct transparency would be helpful.

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 fairly concise, with direct opening sentences and a structured Returns block. While effective, the Returns section could be slightly trimmed, but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 description adequately explains the output format, which is useful given an output schema exists. However, it omits documentation of the single required parameter, leaving a significant gap in completeness. It also does not discuss preconditions or prerequisites beyond the usage guidance.

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 description completely fails to mention or explain the required parameter 'project_key'. The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context. This is a critical gap.

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 returns decisions proven wrong on the project along with the corrected rule. It uses specific verbs ('Return', 'Read') and resource ('decisions proven wrong'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_decisions' and 'get_decision' by focusing on known mistakes.

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 explicitly advises to 'Read these BEFORE acting so you do not repeat a known mistake,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies this tool should be used early in a session. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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