trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It mentions what metrics are calculated but doesn't describe output format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error conditions. For a 2-parameter analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 packed into one sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose (coupling analysis) and lists key metrics. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the what from the how.

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 coupling analysis tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of files with metrics, summary statistics), how results are organized, or any limitations. The agent would struggle to understand what to expect from invoking this tool.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and assessment). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the stability assessment categories or typical limit values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 performs 'coupling analysis' with specific metrics (afferent Ca, efferent Ce, instability index per file) and distinguishes stable vs unstable modules. It specifies the resource (files/modules) and verb (analysis), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_coupling_trend or get_circular_imports.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to similar tools like get_coupling_trend (for trend analysis) or get_circular_imports (for specific dependency issues).

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