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 key behaviors like 'returns ranked source code snippets' and operates 'within a token budget', which are useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the ranking criteria, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, and does not explain the return format (e.g., structure of snippets), which is important since there's no 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 already documents both parameters ('description' and 'token_budget') with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'description' parameter is for 'keyword/topic' searches and the tool uses a 'token budget', but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 ('Search code', 'returns ranked source code snippets') and resources ('code', 'keyword/topic', 'token budget'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reading actual code for concepts/features, unlike tools like 'search_text' or 'get_context_bundle' which might return different types of information.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use when you need to READ actual code for a concept or feature'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, such as 'search_text' or 'get_context_bundle', which might handle different types of searches or contexts.

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