trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'compares request/response schemas' and 'flags removed fields, type changes, and renames', which gives some behavioral insight. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the comparison mechanism. Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on what the tool does. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., what 'breaking change detection' outputs look like) and behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication needs, which would improve completeness.

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 well. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'service' format or 'limit' implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('show', 'compares') and resources ('version history for a service API contract', 'breaking change detection between versions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on contract version comparison rather than other analysis tasks like get_api_contract or get_contract_drift.

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 context through 'breaking change detection between versions' and 'compares request/response schemas across snapshots', suggesting it's for analyzing API evolution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_api_contract or get_contract_drift, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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