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 mentions that the tool 'Supports "parent/child" notation' and implies it retrieves code, but doesn't describe what 'all code' entails (e.g., source files, symbols, dependencies), potential limitations (e.g., size constraints, access permissions), or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no 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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key feature ('parent/child' notation). There's no fluff or redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value.

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 retrieving 'all code' for a business domain, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'code' includes (e.g., files, symbols, dependencies), how results are structured, any limitations (e.g., token budget implications), or error conditions. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to understand its full behavior.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('domain', 'include_related', 'token_budget') with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'parent/child' notation for the 'domain' parameter, which aligns with the schema's example but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for 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: 'Get all code related to a specific business domain.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('code related to a business domain'), and mentions support for 'parent/child' notation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_feature_context' or 'get_task_context' that might retrieve similar but different types of context.

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. With many sibling tools that retrieve various types of context (e.g., 'get_feature_context', 'get_task_context', 'get_context_bundle'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice. The mention of 'parent/child' notation is a feature detail, not usage guidance.

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