trace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows' dependencies, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., data freshness, rate limits). For a tool with no 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently explains the mechanism. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 dependency analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context. For a tool in a crowded sibling set, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent 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%, with the single parameter 'domain' documented as 'Focus on a specific domain (default: all).' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of domain names or how filtering works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Show which business domains depend on which' with the mechanism 'Based on edges between symbols in different domains.' This specifies the verb ('show'), resource ('business domains'), and scope ('dependencies'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_domain_map' or 'get_service_deps'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the mechanism but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for dependency analysis (e.g., 'get_dependency_diagram', 'get_service_deps'), this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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