trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool shows 'when decisions were made and invalidated' and compares it to 'git log', which gives some context about read-only behavior and chronological output. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and a helpful analogy. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the tool's function and scope, while the second provides a relatable comparison. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. While concise, it fails to address key contextual elements: what the output looks like (structure, fields), how decisions are represented, whether there's pagination beyond the limit parameter, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool that presumably returns complex decision timeline data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 (symbol_id, file_path, limit) with their descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by 'project, symbol, or file' (though 'project' isn't a parameter) and implying chronological ordering. It doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline of 3.

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: 'Chronological timeline of decisions for a project, symbol, or file' with the specific verb 'shows' and resource 'decisions'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'like git log but for architectural decisions', which helps differentiate from other decision-related tools like 'get_decision_stats' or 'query_decisions'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions filtering by 'project, symbol, or file', it doesn't specify when to choose this over similar tools like 'get_decision_stats' or 'query_decisions' from the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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