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. It mentions the tool builds a graph and its purpose, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, error handling, output format, or any limitations (e.g., graph size constraints). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by defining the tool's function and its use case efficiently.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and why, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance considerations, which are important for an agent to use it correctly without structured output guidance.

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 parameters (symbol_id, fqn, depth) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the relationship between symbol_id and fqn or depth implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('Build') and resource ('bidirectional call graph centered on a symbol'), specifying the exact functionality. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on control flow analysis through call relationships, unlike other tools that handle different analyses like get_import_graph or get_control_flow.

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 implies usage context ('to understand control flow through a function'), suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., vs. get_control_flow or get_import_graph) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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