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 parsing spec files, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, how it handles missing files, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying detail about parsing, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output expectations, which are needed for a complete understanding, especially without annotations or an output schema.

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 both parameters ('service' and 'contract_type') with descriptions and an enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'service' is identified or the implications of the contract types. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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: 'Get API contract (OpenAPI/gRPC/GraphQL) for a service. Parses spec files found in the service repo.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('API contract'), and scope ('for a service'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_api_surface' or 'get_contract_versions', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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. It mentions parsing spec files, but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., service must be indexed), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools in the list, such as 'get_api_surface' or 'get_contract_versions'.

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