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 effectively describes key behaviors: automatic merge-base resolution, grouping capabilities, and inclusion of blast radius and risk assessment. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or output format details, leaving some gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes all key features in a logical flow from comparison to resolution to grouping to additional assessments.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the tool's purpose, key behaviors, and output features (grouping, blast radius, risk assessment). The main gap is the lack of output format details, which would be important given the complexity of the comparison results.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mentioning 'blast radius' and 'risk assessment' which relate to parameters but don't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('compare', 'resolves', 'groups', 'includes') and resources ('two branches at symbol level'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_changed_symbols' or 'get_change_impact' by emphasizing automatic merge-base resolution and risk assessment features.

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 context through phrases like 'groups by category/file/risk' and 'includes blast radius and risk assessment', suggesting it's for analyzing code changes with risk evaluation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'assess_change_risk' or 'get_change_impact', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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