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 states the tool performs 'ranking' and 'shows' results, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's computationally intensive, requires specific data (e.g., an existing import graph), has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of files with scores). 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 and front-loaded: two brief sentences that directly state the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. No structural issues are present.

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 (ranking algorithm), no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. For a tool that likely returns a list of ranked files, more information would help the agent use it correctly, but the core purpose is clear.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('limit'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't explain how 'limit' interacts with the ranking (e.g., top N results) or default behavior. The schema already documents the parameter adequately, so no extra value is provided.

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: 'File importance ranking via PageRank on the import graph. Shows most central/important files'. It specifies the action (ranking via PageRank), the resource (files), and the method (on the import graph). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_import_graph' or 'get_coupling', which also analyze import relationships but with different outputs.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after analyzing imports), or compare it to siblings like 'get_import_graph' (which might show raw structure) or 'get_coupling' (which might measure interdependencies). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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