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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires git,' which adds context about dependencies, but it doesn't cover other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two brief sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and a key requirement. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy to parse 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 (analyzing git contributions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite but misses details on behavior, output format, and error handling. It's complete enough to understand what the tool does but not how it operates or what results to expect.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'file_paths' clearly documented as 'File paths to check ownership for.' The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Git-based code ownership: who contributed most to specific files (git shortlog).' It specifies the verb ('who contributed most'), resource ('specific files'), and method ('git shortlog'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_symbol_owners', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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 implies usage by stating 'Requires git,' which suggests a prerequisite context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_symbol_owners' from the sibling list) or any exclusions. The usage is somewhat inferred but lacks clear comparative instructions.

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