trace-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error handling, or authentication requirements. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details for a specific community') and adds specific information about what details are included. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 (retrieving structured details), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It specifies what details are retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output format, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper invocation.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Community ID' with type integer and minimum 0. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid ID or where to find it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 ('Get') and resource ('community details'), specifying what information is retrieved (files, inter-community dependencies). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_communities' (plural) by focusing on a single community, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other community-related tools like 'detect_communities'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a specific community, but doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with other community-related tools like 'detect_communities' or 'get_communities'.

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