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. While it mentions the tool 'shows if a file is getting more or less complex,' it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it requires git repository access, or any performance considerations. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from outcome.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., trend data, charts, or metrics), how results are interpreted, or any limitations (e.g., git history depth). Given the complexity of analyzing code complexity over time, more context is needed for effective use.

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 both parameters (file_path and snapshots) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how snapshots relate to commits or what 'cyclomatic complexity' means in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: analyzing file complexity over git history by measuring cyclomatic complexity at past commits. It specifies the verb ('shows') and resource ('file complexity'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_complexity_report' or 'get_symbol_complexity_trend' which might offer similar functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_complexity_report' (which might show current complexity) or 'get_symbol_complexity_trend' (which might analyze symbols rather than files), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for use.

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