trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool 'shows' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, performance characteristics, or error conditions. It mentions output format but lacks operational context needed for safe invocation.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste: first states the core purpose, second specifies output format. Front-loaded with the main action, 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. It's minimally adequate given the schema covers parameters, but could better address operational aspects.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides about 'endpoint' and 'method' parameters, maintaining the baseline score for adequate schema coverage.

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 'find' and resource 'client calls across subprojects that call a specific endpoint', with specific output details 'file, line, call type, and confidence'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on endpoint-specific client calls rather than general usage or graph analysis tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_usages' or 'get_call_graph' is provided. The description implies usage for endpoint-specific analysis but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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