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 traversal with a 'max_depth' parameter, implying potential performance considerations for deep hierarchies, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., tree structure, list). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Walk TypeScript class/interface hierarchy') and immediately specifies the key components ('ancestors' and 'descendants'). There is no wasted wording, and every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 (hierarchy traversal with depth control), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but doesn't address behavioral aspects like read/write nature, permissions, or output structure. This is a minimal viable description that leaves room for improvement in contextual details.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' as the class/interface name and 'max_depth' as traversal depth with default). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying hierarchy traversal but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Walk TypeScript class/interface hierarchy') and the resources involved ('ancestors' and 'descendants'), with precise scope details about what gets traversed. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_symbol' or 'get_implementations' by focusing on hierarchical relationships rather than general symbol information or implementation details.

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 through 'TypeScript class/interface hierarchy,' suggesting it's for analyzing inheritance/implementation structures. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_implementations' (which might focus on concrete implementations) or 'get_related_symbols' (which could include non-hierarchical relationships), leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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