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 implies a read-only analysis (comparing token savings) but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles data (e.g., real-time vs. cached), rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves gaps for a tool that likely involves data processing.

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 front-loads the core purpose (A/B comparison for token savings) and includes key details (trace-mcp vs. raw reads, per-file breakdown) without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 (performance comparison), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format, leaving the agent to infer these from the tool name and schema alone.

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, with one parameter 'period' fully documented via enum and description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the period affects the comparison or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs an 'A/B comparison' to calculate 'how many tokens could be saved' by using 'trace-mcp instead of raw Read/Bash file reads,' with a 'per-file breakdown.' This specifies the verb (compare), resource (token savings), and scope (per-file), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'benchmark_project' or 'get_optimization_report' that might also involve performance analysis.

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 mentions 'trace-mcp' and 'raw Read/Bash file reads' as the comparison basis, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for related tasks, such as 'benchmark_project' for broader performance metrics or 'get_optimization_report' for savings insights.

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