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 auto-detection methods but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with potential complexity in service detection, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and adds context about detection methods. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity of service mapping and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the map output looks like, how dependencies are determined, or any limitations, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns structured data.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'include_endpoints' parameter. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or implications of setting it to true/false, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'map of all services, their APIs, and inter-service dependencies', making the purpose specific. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on service mapping rather than analysis of code, decisions, or other resources, with no tautology present.

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 implies usage by mentioning auto-detection from Docker Compose or treating repos as services, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_domain_map' or 'get_workspace_map'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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