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 'analyzes' and 'shows which services would be affected,' implying a read-only analysis, but doesn't clarify if it's a simulation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or details the output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (analyzing cross-service dependencies), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, how results are presented, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 three parameters (service, endpoint, event) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying how endpoint and event interact or providing examples. 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: 'Analyze cross-service impact of changing an endpoint or event. Shows which services would be affected.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('cross-service impact'), and scope ('changing an endpoint or event'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_change_impact' or 'get_cross_workspace_impact', which prevents a perfect score.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'get_change_impact' or 'get_cross_workspace_impact'. The context is implied (analyzing service dependencies), but explicit usage instructions are absent.

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