trace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'detects' forbidden imports, implying a read-only analysis, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large codebases, error conditions, or output format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic function.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and parameter support. It uses parentheses for clarification without redundancy, making every word earn its place. No unnecessary details or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (architectural analysis with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and parameter options, but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration context. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for a tool with no structured safety or output information.

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 both parameters ('preset' and 'layers') with details like enums and structure. The description adds value by explaining that presets are 'auto-detected if omitted' and custom layers 'override preset', but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. 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 purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'detect') and resources ('architectural layer rules', 'forbidden imports between layers'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on architectural layer validation, unlike other tools that handle code analysis, refactoring, or documentation generation.

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 implies usage for detecting forbidden imports in architectural layers, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_circular_imports' or 'detect_antipatterns'. It mentions support for presets and custom layers, which gives some context, but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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