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. While it mentions the tool 'produces structured docs', it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it modifies any files, how long generation might take, or what format the output takes beyond format options. For a documentation generation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 - two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and output content. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by specific content areas.

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 documentation generation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (file? in-memory object?), whether it's saved to disk or returned as data, what permissions are needed, or how it differs from related sibling tools. The combination of no annotations and no output schema requires more comprehensive description than provided.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'architecture, API surface, data models, components, and dependency analysis' which maps to the 'sections' parameter enum values, but this is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Auto-generate project documentation from the code graph' with specific content areas (architecture, API surface, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('project documentation'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_outline' or 'get_project_map' that might provide related documentation outputs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_outline', 'get_project_map', 'get_api_surface', and 'get_dependency_diagram' that could provide overlapping documentation components, the description offers no context about when this comprehensive documentation generation is preferred over more targeted tools.

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