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 of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what the output looks like (list format, structure), whether there are limitations (e.g., only works within certain scopes), or any performance considerations. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 clearly communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information. Every word in the description serves a purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what the tool does but lacks important context about output format, limitations, and when to use it versus alternatives. The description would benefit from additional behavioral information to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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%, with the single parameter 'name' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value. The description implies the parameter is an interface/base class name but doesn't elaborate further.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('all classes that implement or extend a given interface or base class'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_type_hierarchy' or 'find_usages' by focusing specifically on implementation/extension relationships rather than general type hierarchies or usage patterns.

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's clear what the tool does, there's no mention of when it should be used instead of similar tools like 'get_type_hierarchy' or 'find_usages', nor any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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