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 effectively describes what the tool does (finds untested symbols), how it classifies them (into 'unreached' and 'imported_not_called' categories), and its purpose (thorough coverage analysis). It doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only analysis tool.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality and classification system, while the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only analysis tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and how it classifies results. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return format or structure of results, which would be helpful for understanding what to expect from the tool's output.

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%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, nor does it explain how parameters interact with the tool's classification logic. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Find ALL symbols lacking test coverage') and resource ('symbols'), with explicit scope ('not just exports'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_untested_exports' by emphasizing it includes non-export symbols, providing clear differentiation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for thorough coverage gap analysis'), which implies it's more comprehensive than basic export-only tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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