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 describes what the tool produces (a comprehensive report with multiple components) and mentions a 'diff-aware mode' feature, but doesn't disclose performance characteristics, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a complex analysis tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first lists all report components, the second explains the diff-aware feature. Every phrase adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the primary purpose before listing components.

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 complex impact analysis tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool produces but lacks details about the report format, structure, or how to interpret results. Given the absence of both annotations and output schema, more guidance on result interpretation would be helpful for such a sophisticated analysis tool.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond mentioning 'symbol_ids' enables 'diff-aware mode' and that it can be sourced from 'get_changed_symbols'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide significant additional parameter context.

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 tool generates a 'full change impact report' with specific components: risk score + mitigations, breaking change detection, enriched dependents, module groups, affected tests, and co-change hidden couplings. It clearly distinguishes this from simpler usage tools like 'find_usages' or 'get_related_symbols' by emphasizing comprehensive analysis.

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 for when to use this tool ('diff-aware mode via symbol_ids to scope analysis to only changed symbols'), suggesting it's for analyzing code changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the context implies it's for comprehensive impact analysis rather than simple dependency lookups.

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