trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's function and cost-efficiency, but lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., session data availability, format of returned information, or error conditions). It doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage timing, and highlighting cost benefits. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and benefits, but could improve by mentioning the output format or any dependencies. The absence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, keeping it adequate.

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 for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter details, but it implicitly supports the parameter's purpose by emphasizing 'recent past sessions,' aligning with the max_sessions parameter. This adds slight contextual value beyond the schema.

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 with specific verbs ('shows what was explored') and resources ('recent past sessions'), detailing the exact information it provides ('files touched, tools used, dead-end searches'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on cross-session context rather than code analysis or project metrics.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call at session start to orient yourself without re-reading files') and provides a clear alternative to avoid ('Much cheaper than re-exploring the codebase'), offering practical guidance on timing and efficiency compared to other approaches.

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