portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), describes the comprehensive return data, and specifies the required input (trace ID). However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and return value. Every word earns its place - the first sentence states the action and required input, the second enumerates the comprehensive return data. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned. It comprehensively lists the return data components (request/response data, spans, metadata, cost, token usage, feedback). The main gap is lack of output schema to structure this return data.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve detailed information'), target resource ('a specific trace by ID'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_traces' (which lists multiple traces) by focusing on a single trace. It provides a comprehensive scope of what information is retrieved.

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 implies usage when detailed information about a specific trace is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_traces' or other analytics tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about appropriate contexts.

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