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 describes the tool's purpose, scope, and CI integration context, and mentions the return format ('Returns pass/fail for each gate'). However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, execution time, or error handling for a tool with complex configuration options.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language, and the most important information (the action and return value) comes first.

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 3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the tool's purpose and CI use case, but doesn't address the behavioral aspects needed for safe invocation (permissions, side effects) or provide guidance on interpreting results beyond 'pass/fail'. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between 'scope' and 'since', or provide examples of the 'config' object structure. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('run configurable quality gate checks'), target resource ('against the project'), and lists the specific gates checked (complexity, coupling, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'check_architecture' or 'scan_code_smells' by emphasizing its configurable, multi-gate nature and CI integration purpose.

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 ('Designed for CI integration — AI can verify gates pass before committing'), giving practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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