trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists what information is retrieved, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a real-time check or cached data, what authentication/authorization is required, whether it's resource-intensive, or what format the output takes. The description provides only basic functional information without operational context.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently lists all the information categories this tool retrieves. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate functional information about what's retrieved. However, given the complex ecosystem of sibling tools and the lack of annotations, it should ideally provide more context about when this specific health check is appropriate versus other analysis tools. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks ecosystem context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles the complete 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get') and resources ('index status, statistics, health information, and pipeline progress'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools, which all appear to be analysis/query tools in a code intelligence system.

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 100+ sibling tools including various 'get_*' analysis tools, there's no indication of when index health monitoring is appropriate versus other health/status tools like 'get_project_health' or 'get_health_trends'.

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