trace-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns specific data types, has auto-mining capability when decision store is empty, provides context about decision linkage to code symbols/files, and mentions the ~300 token output constraint. The comparison to 'MemPalace wake-up but code-aware' adds useful context about the tool's nature.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each add distinct value: purpose statement, return details, behavioral context, and comparative analogy. There's no wasted language, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema or annotations, the description provides good purpose and behavioral context but leaves gaps about the exact format of returns (though it mentions types) and doesn't address potential limitations or error conditions. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive given the complexity implied by the sibling tool ecosystem.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (it mentions auto-mining but doesn't elaborate on the parameter). 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 tool provides 'compact orientation context (~300 tokens) for session start' with specific returns (project identity, architectural decisions, memory stats), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_session_resume' or 'get_session_snapshot' that might also provide session context, so it doesn't reach the highest differentiation level.

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 ('for session start') and mentions auto-mining behavior on first call, which provides some guidance about when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternative session-related tools or provide clear exclusions, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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