trace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'show' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires permissions, whether it's safe to call repeatedly, what format the output takes, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 communicates the complete purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple introspection tool and front-loads the key information about what will be shown.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose information but leaves gaps. For a session introspection tool, the description doesn't explain what format the information comes in, whether it's real-time or cached, or how to interpret the results. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more context about return values.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on purpose rather than 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: to show active tool preset, available presets, and registered tools in the session. It uses specific verbs ('show') and identifies the resource ('tool preset', 'available presets', 'tools registered in this session'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which appear to be mostly analysis and transformation tools, making this one unique as a metadata/session introspection tool.

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, timing considerations, or suggest any sibling tools that might serve similar or complementary purposes. The agent must infer usage context solely from the purpose statement.

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