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 mentions the tool 'finds' symbols via specific methods (co-location, shared importers, name similarity), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., pagination, sorting). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and methods, the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with key information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and usage context well, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, error cases) and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters: 'symbol_id' and 'max_results'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format of 'symbol_id' or default behavior for 'max_results'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Find symbols related via co-location (same file), shared importers, and name similarity.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('symbols'), and three specific relationship types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_symbol' or 'find_usages' that might also retrieve symbol information, preventing a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Useful for discovering related code when exploring a symbol.' This suggests the tool is for exploration contexts, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_call_graph' or 'get_related_symbols' (if such existed in siblings), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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