trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by mentioning the dry-run default (important safety context) and the scope of impact (updating import paths across the codebase). However, it doesn't address potential risks, error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens when the operation fails.

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 - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about the default dry-run mode. No wasted words.

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 potentially destructive operation with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It covers the main purpose and safety mechanism (dry-run), but doesn't address error handling, return values, or more detailed behavioral expectations that would be helpful for an AI 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying there are two modes (symbol vs. file) and that dry-run is the default, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('move', 'rename') and resources ('symbol', 'file'), and distinguishes between two modes (symbol vs. file). It explicitly mentions updating import paths across the codebase, which differentiates it from simpler move/rename operations.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for moving symbols or renaming/moving files with import path updates) and mentions the default dry-run behavior for safe previews. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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