langfuse-mcp-java

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

The description presents this as a read-only operation ('Returns', 'inspect'), but annotations declare readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true. This is a serious contradiction—the description fails to disclose what gets destroyed or why a 'get' operation is flagged as destructive.

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 clear information hierarchy: purpose statement first, sibling differentiation second, usage context third, parameter requirement last. No wasted words or redundant phrases.

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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by detailing response contents ('includes all nested observations, input/output, metadata, and timing'). workflow context with find_exceptions is helpful. Minor gap: does not address the destructiveHint implication or potential side effects.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the traceId parameter including its format and requirement. The description adds 'The traceId is required' but this merely duplicates the schema's 'required' constraint without adding semantic context (e.g., where to obtain the ID). Baseline 3 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 the tool 'Returns the full detail of a single ERROR-level trace' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'fetch_trace' by noting it is 'semantically scoped to error traces.' Specific verb+resource+differentiation present.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Use this after find_exceptions to inspect a specific failure in depth.' Also notes the equivalent alternative ('Equivalent to fetch_trace') while clarifying when to prefer this tool (error-specific cases).

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