trace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'List') and output structure (workspace details with dependency graph), but doesn't mention performance characteristics, data freshness, or error conditions. It adequately describes what the tool returns 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core functionality and output metrics, the second specifies the dependency graph feature. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and capabilities.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides complete functional understanding: what it lists, what metrics it returns, and the dependency graph feature. It could benefit from mentioning data scope or freshness but covers the essential context well.

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% with one well-documented parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema already fully documents the single boolean parameter controlling dependency graph inclusion.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all detected monorepo workspaces') with specific output details ('file counts, symbol counts, and languages'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on workspace-level analysis rather than code changes, architecture checks, or other specific analyses.

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 workspace analysis and dependency mapping but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_map' or 'get_subproject_graph'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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