List GPU Trace report sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by noting that only 'queryable' reports are listed and that they are 'currently registered' in the MCP process, indicating the list is dynamic. However, it does not describe the return format or any extra behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and the object ('queryable GPU Trace reports'). There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the scope (queryable, currently registered) but does not detail what fields or metadata the returned list contains, which could be useful since there is no output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers parameter documentation. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'queryable GPU Trace reports' with scope 'currently registered in this MCP process.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list events, metrics, or capture resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The intended usage is implied by the verb 'List' and the resource, but there is no contextual guidance such as 'use this to see available reports before analyzing a trace.'

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