langfuse-mcp-java

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

Description states 'Returns...' implying a safe read operation, but annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction—the description must disclose what gets destroyed or modified, or the annotation is wrong. Also fails to explain openWorldHint 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?

Well-structured with 4 efficient sentences: purpose first, filtering logic second, use case third, parameter guidance fourth. Front-loaded and no filler. Deduction only because it buries the critical 'optional' claim that contradicts the schema.

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?

Lacks return value description (no output schema exists to compensate). The contradictions with both schema (required vs optional) and annotations (safe vs destructive) create significant gaps. Should clarify the actual destructive behavior if the annotation is correct, or clarify why parameters are required.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description provides helpful semantic context ('typically a source file name such as OrderService.java') and explains time range semantics, but it actively misleads by claiming time parameters are optional when the schema marks them as required, creating integration risk.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Returns ERROR-level traces whose metadata contains the given file name as a substring' clearly states the verb (returns), resource (traces), filter criteria (ERROR-level, file name substring), and distinguishes from generic trace search siblings.

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?

Provides clear use case ('isolate errors originating from a specific source file') and mentions time range flexibility. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to use find_exceptions vs this tool) and incorrectly states time parameters are optional when they are required in the schema.

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