zdx_list_device_deep_traces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'one row per trace (id, status, session name, app, ISO timestamps)' and describes the return format. This adds some value beyond annotations but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, which is acceptable for a read-only list operation.

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 concise and structured: three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. No redundant words or unnecessary details. Every sentence serves a clear purpose: state the action, declare read-only, list return fields, and guide next steps.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (id, status, session name, app, ISO timestamps). It also connects to sibling tools for further actions. For a read-only list tool with good annotations, this is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 50% (device_id has no description, query has a detailed description). The description mentions 'for a ZDX device,' implying device_id, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The query parameter is already well-documented in the schema. Thus, the description adds marginal value, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List deep-trace sessions for a ZDX device (full records).' It specifies the verb 'list,' the resource 'deep-trace sessions,' and the scope 'for a ZDX device.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zdx_get_device_deep_trace, which retrieves a single trace, and other zdx_list_* tools that list different entities.

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 guidance on how to use the output: 'Use a returned `trace_id` with the deep-trace metric/event tools or `zdx_get_device_deep_trace`.' It also labels the tool as 'Read-only,' indicating safety. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools for different scenarios, missing full usage clarity.

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