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 information is shown, it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether the list is paginated, sorted, or filtered; if there are rate limits; or what permissions are required. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with specific details about what's shown. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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: 'List installed pre-indexed bundles for dependency libraries.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('installed pre-indexed bundles'), and mentions what information is shown (package name, version, symbol/edge counts, size). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_bundles' or 'get_context_bundle,' which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_bundles' and 'get_context_bundle' available, there's no indication of when 'list_bundles' is appropriate (e.g., for a comprehensive overview vs. searching for specific bundles). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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