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. While it mentions what data is returned (sessions, tokens, etc.), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects such as whether this requires specific permissions, how recent the data is, whether it's cached, any rate limits, or the format of the time-series data. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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: the first sentence lists all key metrics and the tool's scope, and the second sentence provides the usage context. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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 (time-series data retrieval with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the what and why but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and data freshness. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer.

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% (the 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, range, and default), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.

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 with specific verbs and resources: 'Daily token usage time-series' indicates it retrieves historical data, and it lists the exact metrics provided (sessions, tokens, estimated cost, tool calls per day). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on usage analytics rather than code analysis, refactoring, or other categories present in the sibling list.

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 the tool: 'For spotting cost spikes' indicates it's intended for monitoring and anomaly detection in usage patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose naturally differentiates it from code-focused tools.

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