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 the 'auto-builds domain taxonomy on first call using heuristic classification' behavior, which is valuable context not in the schema. However, it lacks details on performance characteristics, error conditions, or what the output looks like (though no output schema exists).

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 and adds one important behavioral detail. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and one key behavior, but lacks output format details, error handling, or performance considerations that would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('hierarchical map of business domains'), and key functionality ('with key symbols per domain'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the unique 'auto-builds domain taxonomy on first call using heuristic classification' behavior, which no other tool in the sibling list mentions.

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. While it mentions 'auto-builds domain taxonomy on first call,' it doesn't specify prerequisites, timing considerations, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'get_domain_context' or 'get_project_map' from the sibling list.

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