trace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions the tool 'understands semantic relationships, not just text matches,' which provides useful context about its approach. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, how results are returned, or any limitations on scope or performance.

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 just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose with specific examples, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted text.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate. While it clearly explains the purpose and when to use it, it lacks information about what the tool returns, any behavioral constraints, or how the three parameters relate to each other. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 (symbol_id, fqn, file_path) with their types and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies these are alternative ways to specify what to find references for, but doesn't explain their relationships or which to use when.

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: 'Find all places that reference a symbol or file' with specific examples of reference types (imports, calls, renders, dispatches). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with 'Grep for symbol usages' and emphasizing semantic understanding, which is not present in other tools like 'search' or 'search_text'.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use instead of Grep for symbol usages — understands semantic relationships, not just text matches.' This gives clear direction on when to use this tool versus text-based search alternatives, directly addressing the choice between semantic and text-based reference finding.

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