trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it renders diagrams, trims to 'max_nodes most important nodes', and specifies input format constraints. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or what 'most important nodes' means algorithmically.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function, input format, and key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and its main constraints. It could be more complete by explaining the output format details or error cases, but given the straightforward nature of the tool and excellent schema coverage, it's largely adequate.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'max_nodes' trimming behavior and input format examples, but does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Render dependency diagram') and resources ('for a file/directory path'), specifying output formats ('as Mermaid or DOT'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_import_graph' or 'get_call_graph' by focusing on dependency visualization with trimming functionality.

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 by stating the input format ('a path like "src/tools/" — not a question') and mentions trimming behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_import_graph' or 'get_package_deps'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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