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 mentions the algorithm (Leiden) and output type (clusters/modules), but doesn't describe computational characteristics (e.g., performance impact, memory usage), whether it modifies data, what format results take, or any limitations. For a complex graph analysis tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with two sentences that each add distinct value: the first states the action and target, the second explains the outcome. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (graph algorithm), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but doesn't address behavioral aspects, result format, or usage context that would help an agent invoke it appropriately.

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% with one parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which explains the resolution parameter's effect and default). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 Leiden community detection'), target resource ('on the file dependency graph'), and outcome ('Identifies tightly-coupled file clusters (modules)'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_communities' (likely a retrieval tool) by specifying it performs the actual detection algorithm.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_communities' or other analysis tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing graph), typical use cases, or when not to use it (e.g., for simple dependency queries).

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