Generate a traceability matrix linking FR/NFR requirements to stories and tests, compute coverage and gate decisions, and optionally persist results to the context graph.
Traceability matrix requirement (FR/NFR) → stories → tests, coverage and gate decision; optionally writes it into the context graph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| register | No | Also add requirement/story/test nodes and edges to the context graph |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the optional side effect of writing nodes/edges into the context graph, which is valuable behavioral transparency. However, it does not describe what the gate decision means, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to existing graph data when register is true.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's core purpose and includes only substantive content. It wastes no words and remains readable.
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 tool with one optional boolean and no output schema, the description adequately names the core deliverable and side-effect option. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned matrix, how coverage is calculated, or what a gate decision looks like, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the register parameter is already clearly described in the schema as adding nodes and edges to the context graph. The description's phrase 'optionally writes it into the context graph' reinforces the parameter meaning but adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the tool's domain and output: a traceability matrix linking requirements (FR/NFR) to stories and tests, plus coverage and gate decision. It uniquely identifies this as a traceability tool, though it lacks an explicit main verb like 'generate' or 'compute', so it falls just short of a 5.
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 reference to coverage and gate decision implies the tool is used when assessing requirements-to-test traceability and release readiness, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as mdan_check or mdan_graph_impact. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.