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. It mentions the scope of data returned (tool calls, files read, etc.) and the high-level benefit (avoiding repetition), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform agent 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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state what the tool does and when to use it, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 information (purpose and usage) but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the return format, data scope limitations, or error conditions, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in complex scenarios. It's minimal but functional.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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: retrieving session history including tool calls, files read, zero-result searches, and duplicate queries. It uses specific verbs ('get', 'avoid repeating work') and identifies the resource ('session history'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_analytics', 'get_session_resume', or 'get_session_stats', which likely provide different aspects of session data.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use to avoid repeating work' indicates when to invoke this tool—to review past activities and prevent duplication. It implies context (e.g., during session analysis or planning). However, it doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use other session-related tools instead, which limits its differentiation from siblings.

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