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 the method (git blame) and a requirement (git), but doesn't describe key behaviors such as output format, error handling, performance characteristics, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two brief phrases that directly convey the tool's purpose and a key requirement. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy 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 complexity of symbol ownership analysis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of owners with line numbers), error cases, or how it interacts with git. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'symbol_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on symbol_id format. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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: 'Git blame-based symbol ownership: who wrote which lines of a specific symbol.' It specifies the verb (check ownership), resource (symbol), and method (git blame). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_code_owners' or 'get_symbol', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 context by stating 'Requires git,' suggesting this tool is for git-based projects. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_code_owners' or 'get_symbol,' nor does it mention prerequisites beyond git. This leaves usage somewhat ambiguous.

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