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. It discloses key behavioral traits: token budget constraints, batch query support, and import deduplication. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would be valuable for a tool with complex data retrieval.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, key features (batch queries, deduplication), and constraints (token budget). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of retrieving bundled symbol data with dependencies and callers, and with no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of outlining what the tool does. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the output structure or potential limitations, especially for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'symbol_id' and 'symbol_ids' are alternatives (single vs. batch) and that 'include_callers' and 'token_budget' are optional features, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 ('a symbol's source code + its import dependencies + optional callers'), specifying exactly what data is retrieved. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_symbol' (which likely returns basic symbol info) by emphasizing the bundled context with dependencies and optional callers within token constraints.

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 usage: 'packed within a token budget' and 'Supports batch queries with shared-import deduplication.' It implies when to use this tool (for comprehensive symbol analysis with dependencies) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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