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 key behaviors: it indexes content into FTS5 for searchability, skips already-indexed sessions by default, and allows forced re-indexing. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool that modifies data (indexing implies writing/storing).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, functionality, and a key parameter condition. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (indexing with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, why to use it, and a behavioral nuance. However, it lacks details on output (e.g., success/failure indicators or indexed session count) and potential side effects, which would enhance completeness for a mutation tool.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters ('project_root' and 'force'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'force=true' in context, but does not provide additional semantics like examples or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('index conversation content', 'stores chunked messages') and resources ('Claude Code / Claw Code sessions', 'FTS5'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on indexing for cross-session search, unlike tools like 'search_sessions' or 'get_session_analytics' which likely query or analyze rather than index.

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 cross-session search', 'enables queries across all past sessions') and includes a specific condition ('Skips already-indexed sessions unless force=true'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'reindex' might be a sibling for re-indexing, but this is not clarified), keeping it from a perfect score.

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