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 describes what the tool computes (tech debt score with specific factors) and that it includes recommendations, but does not mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. It adequately explains the core behavior but lacks operational details.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, metrics used, and additional value (recommendations). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and behavioral overview but lacks details on output format, error handling, or system constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and moderate complexity (involving multiple metrics), it is minimally adequate but could benefit from more context about results or limitations.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('module' and 'refresh'). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of module paths beyond 'src/tools' or details on when to use 'refresh'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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: it calculates a tech debt score (A-F grade) for modules based on specific metrics (complexity, coupling instability, test coverage gaps, git churn) and provides recommendations. It uses specific verbs ('combining', 'includes') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tech debt assessment rather than other analysis types like complexity reports or dependency diagrams.

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 evaluating module-level tech debt, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_complexity_report' or 'get_project_health'. It mentions actionable recommendations, suggesting it's for remediation planning, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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