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. It discloses that the tool displays repos, endpoints, client calls, and inter-repo dependency edges, which gives behavioral context. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, or potential performance implications, leaving some gaps for a tool that likely returns complex graph data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clarifying details. It is efficient with two sentences, though the second sentence could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the definition of subprojects more seamlessly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and scope but lacks details on return values or behavioral traits like data freshness or limitations. It is complete enough for basic understanding but could benefit from more context for a graph-display tool.

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 does not add param info, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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 'show' and the resource 'all subprojects and their cross-repo connections,' with a specific definition of subprojects as 'any working repository in your project ecosystem.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_subproject_clients or get_subproject_impact by focusing on the overall graph structure rather than specific aspects.

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 for viewing project ecosystems with repos and dependencies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_map or get_service_map. It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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