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 reveals the dry-run default behavior ('safe preview'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, potential side effects on dependent code, or how the tool handles errors. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with all essential information. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the operations, the scope, and the default behavior. There's zero waste 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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and default safety behavior, but doesn't address important contextual aspects like what the tool returns, error handling, or the implications of turning off dry-run mode. The description meets minimum viability but could be more complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'add/remove/rename/reorder parameters' which aligns with the 'changes' parameter structure, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 ('Change a function/method signature') and the operations involved ('add/remove/rename/reorder parameters'), plus the scope of impact ('update all call sites'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'apply_rename' or 'extract_function' by focusing specifically on parameter modifications to existing functions/methods.

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 for when to use this tool: when modifying function/method signatures and their call sites. It mentions 'dry-run by default' which implies a safe preview mode, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'apply_rename' might be for different types of renames).

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