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 does reveal important traits: the tool is read-only (implied by 'Surface' and 'no extra I/O'), works from an existing index, and handles specific artifact categories. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like pagination behavior, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits that would be helpful for an agent.

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 sentences: the first establishes purpose with concrete examples, the second clarifies scope and constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what artifacts are available and the tool's scope. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details about return format, result structure, or potential limitations that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Surface') and resource ('non-code knowledge from the index') with specific examples (DB schemas, API specs, infrastructure, CI pipelines, config). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing it retrieves pre-indexed artifacts rather than performing analysis, generation, or search operations like many other tools in the list.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('All data from the existing index — no extra I/O'), indicating it's for retrieving pre-indexed knowledge artifacts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for similar purposes, though the sibling list shows many analysis-focused tools that serve different functions.

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